“The Samaritans were neighbors in the most literal sense, but as for loving them, that seemed impossible. Christ loved them and caused his disciples to marvel at the manner in which he spake to the woman at Jacob’s well and afterwards to others who came out to hear him. The Jews as a whole almost made it a part of their religion to hate the Samaritans, and if they were able to analyze their own feelings, they would probably have to admit that the hatred was directly traceable to the fact of their being such near neighbors. This is a common weakness of poor human nature. Those who are near but not quite with us arouse more bitterness of feelings that complete strangers. Then when such an evil feeling has once been started, the deceitful heart begins to build up fancies to justify, the hatred, thus further traducing those who have already wronged” (Islip Collyer, “The Guiding Light”).

Of all Scriptural principles, this may seem the simplest. Almost any brother or sister could expound it, could exhibit the beauty of the apostle’s simile and reveal the folly of any member being either puffed up with an impression of superior office or depressed by lack of qualification for any particular form of service. Eye and ear and foot and hand all have worthy parts to play. A well equipped mouth is of no service if it fails to arrive at the place where it is wanted. The feet have to bring it. It may follow therefore that an inferior mouth would render better service if only it could be supported by better feet.

The principle is recognized at least in theory, and it needs no further theoretical exposition. Is it recognized in practice? Do we realize the object “that there should be no schism in the body”? Have members “the same care one for another”? So that if “one member suffer, all the members suffer with it”?

The apostle truly presents a high ideal, but it is the ideal at which we must aim if we want to be saved. All that we are told of the judgment seat tends to show that the supreme test is in these matters. If we are repudiated then, it will be because we have failed to live the Truth and not for inability to understand it. We are told that some will be punished for errors committed without adequate knowledge of their Lord’s will; but assuredly it will not be because of inability to understand. It is our duty to know our Lord’s will. The necessary instruction is given to us, and if we fail to hear and understand it is almost certain that an obstinate self-deception is at the root of the difficulty. Such obdurate self-deception is deserving of stripes.

A simple test will probably prove to all who are able to receive instruction that they have far to go in pursuit of the apostolic ideal. Have we the same care one for another? If one member suffers do we all suffer in sympathy, or if one member is honoured do we all rejoice? The natural tendency of the flesh is in the wrong direction under each of these headings. It is natural to have care for those who are the objects of our especial regard, and to be indifferent to all others. Of course, there will be special friendships in the Brotherhood, with different degrees and even different kinds of love. This is inevitable, and not at all incompatible with true fellowship. It is well to understand the distinction between the two words. Friendship is individual and peculiar. You cannot have ten thousand close friends. Fellowship is collective and comprehensive. You can be in true fellowship with any number. Friendship is at liberty to make selection of special companions. Just as a man in the Faith is at liberty to marry whom he will “only in the Lord”, so is he at liberty to choose his special friends, assuming, of course, in both cases, that the desires are reciprocal and that the choice made is in harmony with the other commands of the Lord. Fellowship does not give us such liberty. We fellowship each other on the basis of the one Faith, and this may draw together men and women who are utterly different in taste and temperament. These differences will inevitably affect our choice of special friends but they ought not to affect our “care for one another” in the fellowship of the Gospel. The point can be illustrated without departure from the most ordinary experiences of life. If a brother or sister who is a very dear friend shows signs of weakness and a need for special help, we are ready to give any amount of care and attention to nurse the feeble one back to healthy faith. We would reprove any impatient critic, and find plenty of scripture to assist our advocacy of gentle methods. What long-suffering, patience, gentleness, and compassion are shown in our great example! How many injunctions there are to be kind, considerate, and forbearing! But are we quite as ready to think of these passages if the straying sheep is one whose personality repels us? Are we as ready to sacrifice rest and comfort in trying to assist the unattractive wanderer?

The question whether brethren attract us or repel us personally does not in the least degree affect the truth of their being members of the One Body, and we ought to have the “same care one for another”, because of our fellowship in the Truth, unaffected by the affinities and preferences which belong to human personality. This, of course, as with many others duties, is unnatural. The natural tendency is to be “partial” in judgment. We may be quite innocent of showing any undue respect to the man with a gold ring or disrespect toward the one who is poorly clad, yet we may fall into an exactly similar error on a different basis. A dear friend has erred. Well, we remember how forbearing our Lord was with sinners. We must restore him in the spirit of meekness. One who always repelled us has erred. We remember how Samuel treated Agag; we remember the apostle’s instructions to withdraw from those who are disorderly. We must be valiant for the Truth.

It is not suggested that all are under the sway of such fleshly instincts leading to such partiality of judgment. This, however is the natural tendency, and it is questionable whether even those who are most conscious of the weakness have overcome it entirely. Has there never been a time when in dealing with a friend, you have shown a consideration and patience far beyond anything you can muster for that other offender who does not interest you or possibly repels you? If there has been any such partiality, has it been an instance of weakness in dealing with a friend when you should have been valiant for the truth; or has it been harshness in dealing with another when you should have remembered the meekness and gentleness of Christ? True fellowship demands that we should have the same care one for another “that there be no schism in the body”. When we are least inclined to remember the rights and the interdependence of members, then we should try our hardest. When we are least attracted to members we have the best opportunity for increasing the duties of fellowship. Where our sympathies are least engaged we have the best opportunity of showing that we can be impartial, having the same care one for another.

It is easier for us to conform to the Apostolic command under the second heading we have mentioned. We can suffer with those who suffer, more readily than we can rejoice with those who are honoured. The suffering, however, has to be near and obvious, or we can easily forget and ignore it. We have heard of the millionaire who was so touched with the pitiful story of a caller that he said to a servant, “Send this poor fellow away at once, or I shall have no appetite for dinner.” Perhaps there are many even in the Brotherhood who would find it too painful to regard the lives of their fellows very closely. A tragedy in the house of a next-door neighbour will cast a gloom over us when a far greater tragedy in a distant land hardly affects us at all. In the same way we shall be partial in our treatment of brethren near and distant unless we make a great effort to enlarge our sympathies.

When we are called upon to rejoice with the member who is highly honoured, the task is still more difficult, especially for some natures. There are men who could sympathize with a friend’s misfortune and even make a generous effort to assist him; but they can never forgive him for being successful. The jealous feeling is well disguised, of course. They fear that the friend’s good fortune will turn his head and spoil his character, and we may rest assured that they will find ample confirmation of their worst fears, act how he may. Such people are capable of killing an old friend with pinpricks; shaking their heads all the while, and deploring his supposed weakness.

It is only too true that even brethren are often very unkind to each other without ever owning the fault or recognizing the tortuous self-deception which leads to the cruelty. The evils in the world are reproduced among those who are supposed to have come out from the world. It is easy to forget that there are any obligations in connection with the One Body or that if we sin against any of the members we sin against the Head. The One Body is formed on the basis of the One Faith; the essentials of which remain as in the days of the apostles. They do not change from year to year with the exigencies of human policy. Faith has been corrupted repeatedly both by the neglect of essentials and by the additions of human ideas. We must hold fast to the Word which is the only true light. It does not matter what men may think or say of us; what would the Lord have us do? That is the supreme test and it is well for us to use it now in the day of opportunity and before the day of judgment. If we can really bend our spirits to “learn of him”, we find at once that our duties are constructive and that they begin with the nurture and care of the One Body which is being developed on the basis of the One Faith.

(PrPr)

“Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.” The doctrine of atonement involved in this scriptural principle is one of the most important and in some respects one of the most difficult of all the primary truths connected with the Gospel. Nowhere else is it so easy for men to get out of their depth, and there is no other subject that proves so tempting.

There is certainly danger that vital truths affecting the sacrifice of Christ may be called in question or may be obscured by wrong teaching on this subject. There is far more danger that a destructive strife of words should arise through men getting out of their mental depth in an effort to measure the mind of God. Dr. Thomas once remarked that the elementary truths regarding redemption were few and simple and no reason could be given for them beyond “the fact that God wills them”. If a candidate for baptism revealed a sound knowledge of these simple truths and of this simple explanation of them, we should not dare to “forbid water”.

Suppose that having rendered a satisfactory confession of faith on all other first principles the candidate said: “I believe that God required a perfect sacrifice before He could forgive sin, and that He provided the One capable of rendering that sacrifice. He sent forth His Son, the Lord Jesus, made of a woman, made in all points like his brethren, tempted in all points as we are, but by virtue of his divine parentage so superior to us morally that he was able to render the perfect sacrifice required and thus to secure redemption for himself from sin-stricken human nature and both forgiveness and redemption for those who come to God through him in the way appointed.” Should we dare to forbid baptism because the candidate was unable to explain why God required a perfect sacrifice, or why He demanded the shedding of blood before sins could be remitted ?

If we are quite agreed that an understanding of these simple elements is sufficient for one to enter the Covenant, surely it is a tragedy if brethren become divided simply through the effort to see further. It may be even worse than a tragedy, for it sometimes leads to destructive strife in which extremes act and react upon each other, the disputants getting further and further out of their depth, while the vital duties of life are neglected.

We would not suggest for a moment that being agreed on the simple and elementary truths we should be content to go no further. Certainly we must push on and gain all the knowledge of divine things that is possible. Discussion of such matters may be very helpful if conducted by brethren who have grasped the more elementary teaching of the Word regarding human conduct. This, however, is certainly a subject in which we do well to be swift to hear and slow to speak; we may venture to suggest, still slower to write. So much sin lies at the door of the man who invented printing.

It may be helpful to take note of the main causes that have led brethren astray when they have tried to probe deeply into the doctrine of atonement. We may then be on our guard against these particular dangers.

One cause has been through the tendency to confuse the shadow with the substance. Brethren have reasoned that the types of the law suggested such and such necessities and the sacrifice of Christ had to conform. The truth is, of course, exactly the other way. The work of Christ was the very central feature of the divine purpose and all the shadows of the law had to conform to it. The Apostle in writing to the Hebrews, truly reasons from the types forward to Christ, but he makes it plain that Christ is the substance. We recognize the writings of the Apostles as of precisely the same authority as the Old Testament Scriptures. We do well therefore to take their plainest language as our guide and see that our understanding of types and symbols falls into line.

A second cause of confusion is the tendency to seek an explanation according to a human conception of logic and legality. Many years ago we had to point out that while human laws might often have effects far removed from the intention of the law makers, this could never be the case with the laws of God. We cannot recognize any distinction between the divine law and the divine will. When God makes a law it is the expression of His will for the time to which it applies, and it is made with a full knowledge of all its effects (see Act 15:18). We can hardly suppose that any brother would ever dispute this proposition; but some have reasoned as if they never thought of such an idea. We do well therefore to remind each other of this simple truth, which forbids us to make any distinction between legal necessities and the divine will.

A third cause of confusion has been through the persistent use of phrases that are sometimes misleading. Some staunch brethren in upholding the truth that Christ bore our sin-stricken nature have used language suggestive of an automatic cleansing by death. We could easily have rival camps in this matter, disputants on each side being totally unconscious of the ambiguity of their own language but too acutely conscious of the worst interpretations that could be put on the language of opponents.

Earnest brethren and sisters, anxious to hold the truth, have sometimes been perplexed and almost distracted in the strife of words, beyond their power to understand. The havoc that such strife may cause is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that one of the most capable men we ever had among us, in his efforts for legal logic ended by teaching justification for sin without faith, and we were all slow to realize the full enormity of the position. I well remember the surprise and even consternation of one of his supporters when he was first shown this feature of the case.

Even now there is the same disposition towards legal reasoning regarding types and shadows with the clear principles of Scripture neglected. Although disputants would deny the charge, it is a fact that some of them persistently lose sight of the fact that all things in God’s dealings with this world centre round Christ. The reason that all things under the law were cleansed by the offering of blood, was that all things in the age to come will be through the sacrifice of Christ. In reasoning with Jews it might be necessary to invert the argument, but we who are privileged to know the substance of God’s great purpose must never lose sight of it.

What is the literal truth revealed in the New Testament as to the meaning of sacrifice? It is that God forgives sins and offers eternal life on the basis of the perfect sacrifice effected by Christ in his life and death. Whatever figurative or partly figurative language the Bible may use, this is the real meaning. Washed in his blood, our sins laid upon him, a bearing of our sins in his own body, the purchase of his blood, the ransom, his being delivered for our offences, the just for the unjust: all such expressions must be understood in harmony with the literal truth that God forgives. Transgressions of the divine law can only be put away by the forgiveness and forbearance of God. Physical uncleanness of nature can only be put away by the power of God. The sacrifice of Christ is the divinely appointed basis in which God in mercy and forbearance offers forgiveness and redemption to sinners (Rom 3: 23-24; 4:7; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; 1Jo 1:9; 2:12).

If we desire to probe further and ask the question why did God require such a sacrifice as the basis of the forgiveness offered to humanity, we shall never find any answer through the various interpretations of the law or by talk of the penalty due to sin. Divine law is simply an expression of divine will. It was not the will of God that man should sin, but it was the will of God that man should be a free agent and that death should be the wage of sin. It was the will of God that the human race having been defiled by sin should have no access to His holy presence except on the basis of a perfect sacrifice. And it is the will of God that we should respond to the gracious invitation and be saved on the basis He has provided (1Th 5:9). If we ask why God required such a sacrifice, we must seek a moral explanation. It is no answer to quote the law which expresses His will.

Guided by Scripture we can find a moral explanation that satisfies every demand that the intelligence can make. The perfect sacrifice was required that the flesh might be effectively repudiated, that sin might be conquered and condemned, that the righteousness and holiness of God might be declared, and that sinful man should be humbled without a particle of ground for boasting being left to him (Rom 3:23-27; 8:3; Eph 2:1-9).

God made it clear even in ancient times that humanity could not approach to Him at all except with humble faith and on the basis of blood shedding. He gave a law that emphasized the sinfulness and helplessness of His people (Rom 8:15; 5:20). He made it clear that when sins were put away by sacrifice they were really forgiven (Lev 4:20,26,31,35). He promised a deliverer who should “make an end of sin”, and “bring in everlasting righteousness” (Dan 9). When the fullness of time was come He revealed that scheme of love into which even the angels had desired to look. He made selection of a virgin of the house of Israel and produced from her one who should be strong for the great work required. So the flesh was repudiated even in the birth of Christ, sin was conquered and condemned in every act of his life, and finally he freely rendered the last obedience even unto death that he might be raised from the dead to immortality and glory as the captain of our salvation — made perfect through suffering (Heb 2:10). To him much was given and of him much was required. The lights and shadows inseparable from the formation of a character needed to be intense in the probation of our great Captain. He worked out his perfection and salvation by the strength God gave him, and thus through him God opened the way of life for us. Here is the sin nature that had produced only helpless sinners, controlled, condemned and finally put away by the strong Son of God in his perfect obedience of life and death. On this basis humanity can approach the holiness of the Creator and men of faith though sinners can be exalted to the divine. On this basis of the sin nature conquered, repudiated and condemned by the one God made strong for Himself, God forgives. That is the real meaning of atonement.

It is hardly possible to imagine anyone who had ever caught even the most fleeting glimpse of this vision turning back to the pitiful speculations of men as to supposed legal necessities. There are those in the world who think that the real body of Christ never rose, but remains eternally dead as the price due to God or the punishment due to sin! It would be difficult to make any comment on such an idea while preserving the language of decorum. The brethren are doubtless proof against such monstrous teaching. Let them keep far from the narrow reasoning that leads in that direction. The New Testament describes the sacrifice of Christ in plain and literal language. Let us interpret all figures and symbols by reference to the plain statements. God — who knows the end from the beginning, who does according to His will, but who “cannot deny Himself” — God provided the means for condemning and overcoming sins on the basis of which He with much forbearance forgives those who please Him by their faith.

Much controversy has been caused by the question as to whether Christ offered for his own cleansing. It has been largely a war of words, due on the one hand to a fear of saying or subscribing to anything derogatory to Christ and on the other hand perhaps a tendency to relapse into the old exaggeration of “original sin”. There ought not to be a minute’s difficulty in dealing with the question and securing agreement.

When we speak of “sin” in the flesh we use the phrase just as the Apostle used it in Rom 7. Obviously it is a derived or secondary sense of the word, for the primary meaning of sin is transgression of divine law. It is a similar extension of meaning to that of the word “death” for poison when they said, “there is death in the pot”. The Apostle speaks of a law in his members which wars against the laws of God and leads to transgression. He calls this physical weakness “sin” in the flesh or “sin” that dwelleth in me. It is the diabolos in human nature, the natural desires of the flesh which, if they are allowed to “conceive”, “bring forth sin”. We need not argue as to whether there is such a law. We all know it only too well. We are born with it and if we give way to any sin we correspondingly strengthen the evil desire in that direction and thus make “sin” in the flesh more active.

To suppose that an extraordinarily pure and righteous man would feel this weakness less than others is a huge mistake. The truth is the other way. It is the thoroughly fleshly man who is unconscious of the sinful law in his members and who probably would not understand what the Apostle meant. The man with the highest ideals and the most spiritual mind will feel the struggle most. To suggest that Christ was tempted in all points as we are and yet without this law of sin in his members is to proclaim a complete contradiction. It is like saying, “Except that he was not tempted at all!” Suggestions from without are no temptation to us if they do not appeal to something within. Christ bore just this same defiled nature that we bear or he could not have been tempted as we are and therefore could not have condemned and conquered sin. Christ bore this quality in the flesh, but he never allowed it to conceive even to the point of sinful thought. Therein was the most terrific struggle and the most portentous victory of all human experience. It is easy to understand that with his ideals, and his standards of rectitude, the weakness of the flesh would be so distressing that even the most startling language of the Psalms is comprehensible.

Now whether we take the plain language of the Apostles (Heb 9:12; 10:20) or the prophecies and types of the law, the teaching is that all things were to be cleansed by the perfect sacrifice and that no one of Adam’s race should have access to the Most Holy place except on the basis of that sacrifice (Lev 16:2-14 — note seven times of sprinkling) .

Some have caused confusion by arguing whether Christ’s offering for himself was “only a matter of obedience to God” or whether it was something more. What do they mean? Obedience to God is carrying out the will of God. What can be required beyond this? Surely we are all agreed that Christ, “the beloved son”, “the servant in whom God delighted”, and the one who “always did his Father’s will”, needed no forgiveness. Surely we are also agreed that he needed cleansing from the sin-stricken nature in which he wrestled with and conquered the diabolos. There could be no forgiveness for personal sinners except on the basis of the perfect sacrifice, for this was the will of God. There could be no cleansing and immortalizing, no entry into the Most Holy by any of Adam’s race except on the basis of the same perfect sacrifice, for that also was the will of God. Christ came to do God’s will, he was obedient in all things even unto death, and so with his own blood — in other words, on the basis of his perfect offering — he entered the Most Holy “having obtained eternal redemption.”

The truth is that when brethren who are agreed as to these fundamentals still argue and suspect each other of being “unsound”, they are really in their minds raising that old question of many years ago, “Supposing Christ had been the only one to be saved, would he still have had to die a sacrificial death?” Everyone ought to have learned long ago that this question is not legitimate. It is asking, “If the will of God had been totally different in one direction, would it have remained the same in another closely related matter?” There is only one proper answer to such a question. No one knows what the will of God would have been if His purpose had been other than it is, and only a presumptuous man would claim to know.

We have to do with the purpose of God as it is and as it is revealed to us. These truths are so simple and withal so beautiful that unless brethren insist on a misleading form of words making for strife, there should be no difficulty in agreeing.

The will of God determines everything. It was the will of God that none of our sin-stricken race should enter His holy presence except on the basis of the most complete repudiation of the flesh involved in a perfect obedience even unto death. He provided the strength necessary for this great work and it was for this purpose that Christ was born. Thus through the blood of the everlasting Covenant he was brought again from the dead. With his own blood he entered the Most Holy place, having obtained eternal redemption, and we, if we are faithful, can stand at last “washed from our sins in his blood” and covered with his righteousness. All these figures meaning that God accepts, forgives and cleanses His people on the basis of the perfect life and death of His Anointed Son.

“What communion [koinonia] hath light with darkness?… Therefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing” (2Co 6:14,17).

This passage has always been popular with separatists, but it is even more sorely misapplied than some of the others we have considered. The context clearly speaks of a life of unrighteousness. From such a worldly outlook and way of life the believers are certainly prohibited, since such a joining is an “unequal yoking with unbelievers”. But it is a peculiar wresting of Scripture which would take this passage and wield it in cutting off believers for some minor deviation, real or imagined!

The entire passage is much richer and more detailed than one would ever imagine from a cursory reading. Each phrase is fully expounded in a series of articles by David Parry — in which practical applications are precisely drawn (Tes 46:218-220, 270-272,311-314, 341-344, 427-429, and 452-455; Tes 47:70-74). These exhortational conclusions reveal once and for all the moral force of the passage, in contrast to the mere legalistic approach in “withholding fellowship” at the breaking of bread. We have certainly come to see by now, if we had not realized it already, that “fellowship” is a much broader and more meaningful concept for believers than the question of whom we exclude from “our” table (which is not even ours, but Christ’s). Fellowship with God is a way of life which permeates all corners of our lives, and calls us constantly upward to a fuller appreciation of life lived always in the presence, and in the household, of our Heavenly Father. Those who convince themselves that their duty in the way of “separation” is accomplished when they ruthlessly exclude some or many of their brethren from their “fellowship” have simply not understood as yet what “fellowship” is all about! And it just may be that, in giving undue attention to one area of responsibility, they are on their way to ignoring other, more far-reaching duties!

1. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers (v 14): Only two can wear a yoke, and they must agree together in the direction they are traveling. We are commanded to be yoked with Christ (Mat 11:28,29), and we can be yoked with no other at the same time.

“The call of Christ is to a complete way of life — it is all-sufficient. Failure to realize that when Christ spoke of two ways, he meant two and no more, has led men to try and walk in both, looking for a third. For the Christian partnership to work, the believer must at all times try to match the example of his Master. The only incentive is to think deeply of the work being performed together. Unless positive reasons for a life in Christ are understood, the yoke of Christ will chafe and the discipline be irksome” (Ibid 220).

2. What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? (v 14): This word “fellowship” might best be translated “partnership”, a joint partaking in something. Righteousness describes the ethical standard by which God offers men salvation. It is the pattern of life in Christ. It is impossible that there should be any partnership between this way of living and its exact opposite — unrighteousness, or lawlessness.

3. What communion hath light with darkness? (v 14): This word “communion” is the common word for “fellowship” — koinonia. To think of fellowship between light and darkness is an impossibility, for the two cannot in any way exist side by side. Those who say they fellowship light and yet walk in darkness are liars (1Jo 1:5-7). Correct beliefs are necessary, but our fellowship in light must be proven by the actions of a new life (1Jo 2:29; 3:7; Joh 3:19-21; 8:39; 10:37). The Bible definition of walking in darkness is not holding false doctrine, but hating one’s brother (1Jo 2:11)!

4. What concord hath Christ with Belial? (v 15): “Concord”, relating to the English word “symphony”, expresses the idea of harmony in singing or other verbal expression. In Christ’s life the “symphony” has already been composed. Each performer and each instrument should be controlled by that original plan. We as the players bring our individual talents to bear upon the composer’s score. But we cannot “play our own tune”, or else there will be discord and not concord in the finished product. Trying to follow both Christ and Belial (idols) is like singing two songs at once. How much easier to follow the example set by Christ, so that there be true harmony in our lives!

5. What part hath he that believeth with an infidel? (v 15): Here is the idea of sharing, or having a portion or an inheritance, which may be understood against the Old Testament background of the promised possession of the land. “Believers and unbelievers have nothing in common which they can share. The believer cannot take part in activities and associations which are not controlled by God. The believer cannot share his inheritance, nor allow it to be taken away by unholy men. He can, and must, seek to share his inheritance by converting the unbeliever; but he must take care that this work is the one that God has described in His Word. The Lord is the portion, the Hope of Israel, the founder of the New Jerusalem. It is His inheritance, His kingdom, His memorial” (Ibid 429).

6. What agreement hath the temple of God with idols? (v 16): This question involves the idea of putting together, or a joint deposit, particularly of votes. The ecclesia is the temple of God (1Co 6:19); its members must cast in their “votes”, and their hopes and aspirations, with their brethren — not with the “idols”, crude or sophisticated, religious or secular, around them. The temptation to cast in one’s lot and find apparent satisfaction with the godless of today is a strong one to the modern saint. The only real antidote is not knowledge alone but application to the example of Christ.

“Therefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (v 17): “The teaching of these words as highlighted by Paul involves an equal determination on the part of a Christian to become holy through separation from unrighteousness, darkness, Belial, unbelievers, and idols. The far-reaching implications of these words are now obvious and it behoves those who would apply them in very limited circumstances to take care that in casting the first stone they are not condemning themselves” (Ibid 72).

“Don’t force yourself on others. Don’t keep bothering them. Let every man bear his own burden (with God’s freely-offered help). If you really have the Truth in your heart, if it totally possesses you (and there’s no hope for anyone without that), then your own company, and God’s and the Word’s, are all you ever need. Truly, other spiritual companionship is desirable. It is a great blessing from God. Be thankful whenever it comes. Put yourself in the channel of receiving it by being a pleasure to be with: a giver and not a taker. But do not demand it. Be perfectly content, if necessary, without it. Be available to all — to help them. But as far as humanly possible, be very sparing of seeking, or expecting, or demanding, their help for you. All have their own lives and problems. You can solve yours best by forgetting yourself. Fill your mind and preparations with being ready to help others. Be alive and aware to the needs of others. God will use you as He needs you (and He is always short of such). But if He doesn’t, then just patiently wait and prepare for when and if He does. The desire and readiness and patience is your part. Leave God’s part to Him, in His own good time. It will come” (GVG).

Confessions of an ex-Berean, almost-Dawn, and at-last-Central brother:

I grew up, and was baptized (1965) in a Berean ecclesia. I was a serious student (above all my contemporaries, if I may say so), studying all the “pioneer” writings (for example, I read Eureka for the first time when I was 17 — yes, all the way through, and carefully, making notes in my wide-margin Bible). I studied the Berean position on fellowship, and I knew (as best anyone can know) how wrong Central was: there was evolution, and clean flesh, and loose living, etc, etc. The problem was: I knew about Bro Lovelock and “evolution”, about Bro Strickler and “clean flesh”, and the “Endeavour” magazine, and I assumed that these issues were grounds for remaining separate from all my brethren in the “loose, liberal, worldly” Central fellowship. I even knew the passages about fellowship — like the “heretick” passage, and the “Godspeed” passage, and the “Can two walk together?” passage. But I had never studied these passages in context; I just knew, without studying them, that they must justify the Berean position by condemning the Central position.

Most telling of all, however, I didn’t know any real “Central” brethren as individuals — I just knew them as a group of errorists.

Then, in 1972, I married a young Berean sister whose family was simultaneously joining the Dawn fellowship. Why did they leave the Bereans to join Dawn? Because in Texas, where we lived, a Berean brother had been divorced and then married again, and was not disfellowshipped! Here was a “sin” which was tolerated by the Berean ecclesias, but would not be tolerated by the Dawn fellowship! We had studied divorce and remarriage also, and concluded — with the Dawn — that any second marriage, while the first spouse was still alive, was a continuing “state of adultery”. It seemed so logical, and we never let personalities get in the way of principle.

We became disillusioned with the Berean fellowship because they just would not go to the limits necessary, as we saw it, to preserve the Truth on Divorce and Remarriage. But we became equally disillusioned with the Dawn fellowship also, when we had a personal interview with the elder (and leading) Dawn brother in Canada, in which he informed us that there was, in his opinion, no solid Bible evidence for the Dawn “4 points” on ” D & R”!

We were aghast. How could one be in the Dawn fellowship, even a leading brother, and not hold absolutely and unequivocally to the Dawn position, every point of it? And, for that matter, how could the Bereans — who had taught me that principle came first and foremost — allow “adulterers” to break bread with them?

It was shortly after this, in 1973, that my wife and I found ourselves in a city where the only ecclesia was a Central ecclesia. We didn’t join the ecclesia at first, but we did attend Central Bible classes (expecting to confirm at close range our previous assessments arrived at from a safe distance). Here, for the first time, we met, week after week, and face to face, real Central brothers and sisters. The surprise was… they were just like us. Their beliefs were the same, in all essentials. They didn’t believe evolution or clean flesh; and they didn’t know of anyone who did.

But the real revelation was in meeting, week after week, a sister who had been divorced and remarried. Technically, by our view of things, she was a continuing “adulteress” because her first (and — some would say — only true) husband was still alive… somewhere. But she also happened to be, at the same time, a God-fearing and kind and spiritual sister who brought her children to Bible classes and meetings, who hoped fervently for the return of her Savior, and who discussed intelligently all the principles of the Truth.

For the first time, we had to evaluate our theories alongside real flesh-and-blood people. We realized that something had to give.

The first thing to go was the Dawn “continuing state of adultery” theory, which I discovered upon further Bible study was neither Scriptural nor even “pioneer-compatible”.

The second thing to go was the Berean/Dawn “pure fellowship” paradigm: Careful study of the various Bible passages used to justify separation from Central showed me that they had been misapplied and misinterpreted. In 1974 we joined the Central fellowship, where we have been ever since. Out of this came a book, “Biblical Fellowship”, which is still available today.

But what about other Bible passages, like the passages that warn of apostasy — the “wolves” among the “sheep”, “the love of many shall wax cold”, “Shall he find faith on the earth”, etc, etc? Yes, they are there. And there HAS developed, in the history of Christianity, an apostasy fully answering to the verses. But is the Central fellowship, or any other group of Christadelphians, the Scriptural fulfillment of those predictions? No, I do not believe so. Why? Because the basis of faith and fellowship in the Central group is sound, and because any individual instances of error (in teaching or conduct) should be Scripturally dealt with by the nearest brethren and/or ecclesia on a local basis. How well — or poorly — they are handled in every case is not our personal concern.

Even though I wrote “Biblical Fellowship” about 20 years ago, I always felt there should be a follow-up study, with the purpose of distinguishing — on a sound Bible basis — between essential and non-essential Bible teachings. Why? Because brethren could always say something like this: ‘Yes, of course! We know we should be forgiving and kind and patient, and even mindful of the One Body. And we are…with our own brothers and sisters. But these principles in ‘BF’ are beside the point; they just don’t apply to Group A… or B… or C because they are wrong on such-and-such first principle.’ So it seemed that we as Christadelphians needed a Biblical test by which true first principles could be separated from other, secondary matters (which should not be made tests of fellowship). This study I finally managed to complete, interspersed among many other things, this year [1999]. It is entitled “What Are the First Principles?” The two books together should help to understand, in the words of Brother Robert Roberts, “how far we should go, AND WHERE WE SHOULD STOP, in our demands upon fellow-believers”.

And that is an overview, albeit a brief one. Sometimes, on reflection, it seems like a pale version of the Saul/Paul spiritual journey… There was a time when I thought I was doing service to God by remaining separate from, and castigating (condemning?), most of the Christadelphians worldwide, because they would not join a “pure fellowship” like mine. “Been there, done that!” I pray that I will obtain mercy, because I did it in the flush of youthful zeal, when I thought I had all the answers, and when I thought it was NECESSARY to have all the answers.

More than thirty years after my baptism, I’m not nearly so sure I have all the answers to all the problems that beset the brotherhood. In fact, I’m still working on my own problems, and I admit I’m not completely free of the “beam” in my own eye. I know I will need mercy in the day when I stand before Christ, and I feel sure that others will need mercy too. That Judgment Seat is soon enough (and it is the right place) to handle all sorts of perceived problems in the brotherhood; and that judgment will be done correctly — we can rest assured in that.

While I understand much more of the deep things and nuances of Bible teaching than I did 30 years ago, I believe that the real “Truth” is in fact a quite simple thing — like the straightforward Bible teaching in Acts about Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and second coming. (Please obtain and read “WATFP” for a full development of this point.) An old rabbi (I’m sure he was an old rabbi, and not a young one — but that may be one of MY remaining unproven prejudices!) said that the Bible is like a river… so deep that the strongest man must swim there… and at the same time so shallow that even a little child can wade. We each come to the Bible in all the various stages of our personal spiritual development, and it offers us something at every level. The problems of fellowship practice come when we, wherever we happen to be on the continuum of learning/experience/development, try to bring everyone else up (or maybe down) to our level at that moment.

I have spent 23 years in the Central fellowship, and (unlike the youthful zealot of a quarter century ago) I can now speak from considerable personal experience. The Central fellowship is not a perfect body, but I don’t expect it to be. It has the same problems, in individuals and even in whole ecclesias, that other groups (Dawn, Berean, Old Paths, Unamended) have (and I’ve seen a fair amount of them all). It may even have more problems, because there are simply many more Central brethren and ecclesias (and certainly many more “novice” brethren and ecclesias) than there are in the other Christadelphian bodies. But, on a per capita basis, it is no worse, and it may be better and more spiritual overall, than any of the smaller groups.

The “Body of Christ” is not an ivory tower, nor a fortress, nor an “Elijah-cave”, where we can hide from errors/problems/sins, keep our robes spotless, and wait for Christ to come. The “Body of Christ” is, instead, a “hospital”, where sick people go to get better, and to help others get better. IF our robes are spotless when Christ comes, it will not be because we have kept them pulled back from his imperfect brethren, but because we have washed them in his precious blood. “I thank thee, Lord, that I am not as other men!” But you are — I am — we are — all too much like other men. In the last analysis, I belong to an “impure fellowship” because my “fellowship” includes… ME!

Brother, reflect on these other passages I’ve referred to above. Put them all in the “mix” with the other “fellowship” passages. Get copies of “BF” and “WATFP” and read them too. Ponder them all. Don’t be satisfied to stake your claim to acceptance at the Judgment Seat on being “better” than your brethren — Central or Unamended or whatever. Such an ambition is a “bruised reed”; if you lean on it, it will break and pierce you at the final day. Remember the publican’s prayer: “God be merciful to me… a sinner!”

Yours in the One Hope, George Booker

1. We are a Christadelphian ecclesia (Greek ekklesia: congregation, assembly, “church”).

2. We believe the One Faith, as taught in the Bible, and defined in our Statement of Faith. For interecclesial fellowship purposes, we consider our Statement of Faith to be equivalent to the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith.

3. We recognize as brethren, and welcome to our fellowship, all who have been baptized after belief of the same doctrines.

4. We meet every Sunday morning for worship, exhortation, and the partaking of bread and wine, and at other times during the week as may be decided upon for Bible study and preaching activities.

5. In matters not affecting essential doctrines, we mutually agree to submit to the arrangements preferred by the majority.

6. The arranging committee of the ecclesia shall consist of seven arranging brothers, who are responsible for all ecclesial business. This committee has been appointed initially by the ecclesia. The committee may remove any committee member by the decision of five arranging brothers. The committee shall perpetuate itself by appointment of suitable replacements in the cases of resignation or removal. Such appointments will be agreed upon by simple majority vote of the arranging brothers.

7. In the appointment of arranging brothers, we shall follow the directions of Paul as to the qualifications they ought to possess (1Ti 3; Tit 1). No brother shall be eligible for appointment to the arranging committee for the first two years after baptism or admission to fellowship, except by unanimous consent of the arranging brothers.

8. The arranging committee shall meet as often as necessary to arrange the conduct of the meetings, and to decide all matters concerning the working of the ecclesia. A special meeting of the arranging committee may be convened at the request of three brothers, who must state the nature of the business.

9. Decisions of the arranging committee shall have immediate effect, but they may be reversed by the ecclesia acting as a body at its annual business meeting.

10. Special meetings of the ecclesia may be convened by the secretary at the request of the arranging committee. At all such special meetings it shall require a majority of the membership of the ecclesia to form a quorum.

11. All applications for baptism or admission to fellowship must be reported to the secretary, who shall make arrangements with the arranging committee for the interview and baptism if necessary.

12. The arranging committee will appoint brothers (from their own number or from the other brothers in the ecclesia) or sisters, in the following positions:

1. Secretary, or recording brother
2. Treasurer, or finance brother

3. Sunday School supervisor (brother or sister)
4. Preaching committee chairman

5. Visiting committee chairman
6. Welfare committee
7. Presiding brothers

8. Speaking brothers
9. Serving brothers
10. Interviewing brothers/sisters

11. Any other necessary positions, as the arranging brothers may determine.

13. The secretary, or recording brother, shall (a) keep a record of all the proceedings of the ecclesia, including all business meetings; (b) handle all ecclesial correspondence and other communications, and report these at his discretion to the arranging committee or ecclesia as a body; (c) remind the ecclesia of meetings to be held or other matters affecting them; (d) arrange all schedules for presiding, speaking, and serving; (e) keep an attendance record for the memorial meeting; and (f) generally oversee the affairs of the ecclesia.

14. The treasurer, or finance brother, shall receive, maintain, and disburse all funds of the ecclesia, and shall report periodically to the arranging committee for approval. All funds and property belonging to the ecclesia shall legally vest in the arranging committee, as trustees for the entire body.

15. The Sunday School established in connection with the ecclesia shall be under its official control. The Sunday School supervisor shall appoint the teachers, report to the arranging committee, and, along with them, manage the school.

16. The preaching committee chairman shall organize and supervise all preaching activities, and arrange for all advertising and preaching expense to be paid by the treasurer. He shall appoint other brothers and sisters to assist him.

17. The visiting committee chairman shall communicate with brothers or sisters absent from the memorial meeting to determine the cause of absence, and to arrange a supplementary memorial meeting. He shall also arrange transportation to ecclesial meetings when necessary and reasonable. He shall report to the welfare committee anything coming to his attention which may require assistance, and to the secretary any matters which may require the attention of the arranging committee.

18. The welfare committee shall, along with the treasurer, who serves as chairman, inquire as to needs and provide financial assistance to brothers and sisters and their families, or to those otherwise connected with the ecclesia.

19. The following order shall be observed at our Sunday morning memorial meeting:

1. Hymn
2. Bible reading, as chosen by speaking brother
3. Announcements by the secretary

4. Collection
5. Prayer by the presiding brother

6. Exhortation
7. Memorial hymn
8. Thanks for, and partaking of, bread

9. Thanks for, and partaking of, wine
10. Closing hymn
11. Closing prayer

20. No accusation against any brother or sister shall be listened to in public or private, until the brother or sister making the accusation shall have taken the course prescribed in Mat 18:15-18. Any brother or sister refusing to take this course while persisting in his/her accusation shall himself/herself be considered and dealt with as an offender against the law of Christ.

21. Any brother or sister departing from any element of the One Faith, as defined in our Statement of Faith, shall, by majority decision of the arranging brothers, cease to be in fellowship.

22. Absence from the established assembly of the brothers and sisters for the breaking of bread, except for illness or other lawful reason, is an offence against the law of Christ.

23. None shall, even for a legitimate cause, separate themselves from the assembly, without first stating, in writing to the secretary, the cause of impending separation; and asking such to be considered at a special arranging meeting, at which they consent to be present and take part.

24. No brother or sister withdrawn from by another ecclesia shall be received into fellowship until the cause shall have been investigated. This investigation shall not take place without first asking the other ecclesia to take part. If the other ecclesia shall refuse cooperation, the matters in question shall be investigated and final decision made without them.

25. In case of another ecclesia, after this process, receiving into their fellowship any brother or sister from whom we have withdrawn, we shall not consider it a cause of separation from them. Instead, we shall regard the matter as one of difference of judgment as to facts merely, and we shall be content in that case to maintain our own withdrawal from the brother or sister in question.

26. None of the foregoing rules may be altered, and no new rules added, except by the two-thirds majority vote of the ecclesia in its annual business meeting.

27. The foregoing Statement of Faith, including the Commandments of Christ, shall be considered a part of the Constitution of the ecclesia.

“The love of Christ constraineth us” (2Co 5:14,15)

Remarks at a baptism

Today we witness a baptism, an act familiar to us all through years of repetition. An act perhaps so familiar to some of us, that it is very difficult to recall the wonder and awe with which we ourselves submitted to it, years ago. And so we must ask ourselves: Why do we do this?

The Scriptures give several answers:

1. Because it is commanded (Mat 28:19,20);
2. Because, being no longer ignorant of the call of Christ, we now know what is required of us (Acts 17:30,31);

3. Because rejection brings punishment (John 12:48); and
4. Because baptism represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Rom 6:1-4).

But, most of all (and lest we forget), we should be baptized because… Christ loves us! “For the love of Christ constraineth us” — — not just his power, not just his holiness, and certainly not just our fear of him. But Christ’s love is the motivating force that brings us to the water. Christ’s love… and God’s love: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son…”, and “delivered him up for us all” (Rom 8:32).

Such a love frightens us with its intensity. It is the fervency of emotion that is, imperfectly, demonstrated by a father’s love for his child — a pitying, sympathetic, compassionate love that knows no limits and makes no conditions (Psa 103:13).

“The love of Christ constraineth us” — — it draws us and compels us, by an appeal to our inmost selves. Whatever we do for God (as though we could do anything for Him!) must be done out of love. No other motive can, in the final assessment, have any meaning. Our love must reciprocate that of Him who first loved us. Our devotion must echo His devotion.

“…Because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.” We hear, so often, do we not, that baptism is a “death”? And “death” sounds so painful, so fearful, so final! But this baptismal “death” — with all it implies — is not so. It is a joyful, loving, grateful response: “I give up my old life freely, because my new life in Christ will be so much better.”

“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20).

Our obedience in baptism, then, cannot be just an intellectual agreement to certain facts and principles. But it must be, finally and foremost, an emotional commitment of our whole beings to the revelation of God’s amazing love through Christ. The Almighty God, who spans the heavens with His hands, needs no temple of wood or stone made with our hands. The cattle on a thousand hills are His already; we could not “give” them to Him, no matter how we try. One thing, and one thing only, remains ours exclusively, the “treasure” that can never be His until we offer it to Him, in rapturous response to the miracle of His love made flesh to die for us. Listen, he is asking now:

“My son, my daughter… Give Me your heart!”

When Jude wrote his warning to the saints of the first century, he certainly had reason to be alarmed. There seems to have been a tremendously dangerous problem at large; those who were disrupting the ecclesias were not even described as brethren; they were “certain men…. ungodly men” (Jud 1:4). Jude’s other terms for them are even worse: lascivious, brute beasts, greedy, lustful, mockers, sensual. It is hard to imagine sins heinous enough among the brethren of today ever to justify such terms.

Even though Jude says that these men “deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jud 1:4), it is most unlikely that they would deny association with Christ altogether. More likely they were such as those against whom John warned in his second epistle: teachers who so confounded the nature and the work of the Saviour that in their minds the gospel message was hopelessly distorted.

In judging from the catalogue of vices of these men, and considering those with whom they were compared, it would appear that they were of the “libertine” school. To such men nothing done in the flesh was truly sin, for they possessed a superior knowledge. It was the old lie of the serpent: that there is nothing wrong in “experiencing” all aspects of life — the evil with the good. “Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound.”

“The question must be asked: were these monstrously dangerous false brethren in fellowship with those to whom Jude wrote? From verse 12 it would seem they were: ‘these are a blot on your love feasts, where they eat and drink without reverence’ (NEB). On the other hand in verse 19 Jude says of them; ‘it is they who set up divisions.’ Presumably if they were in the ecclesia it was only in order to draw it away from the faithful brotherhood into an orbit of their own in which they would be ‘wandering stars’ ” (AE, “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century Ecclesia”, Xd 108:210,211).

In such a distressing situation it is certainly understandable that Jude would rise to sound an alarm. If ever there were a time to protect the flock from the wolves, it was then.

However, considering the enormity of the errors rampant (worse, it must be admitted, than anything that has troubled the brotherhood in modern times), Jude shows a remarkable restraint in his instructions as to the type of contention to be waged. First, he emphasizes the positive actions which should counteract the evil influences:

“Build up yourselves in your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God…” (Jud 1:20,21).

And secondly, he implies that God will judge these sinners in due time; all of his examples and comparisons tending toward this view: it was God Himself who singled out the generation of Israel to die in the wilderness (Jud 1:5); it was God who sent forth the fire and earthquake against Korah and his followers (Jud 1:11). Even Michael, an archangel, does not bring a railing accusation against his adversary (whoever that might be is irrelevant to this discussion), but merely promises that God will rebuke him (Jud 1:9). These evil men against whom Jude warns were present at the “love feasts” (Jud 1:12) — the Breaking of Bread! — yet Jude writes not a word commanding their exclusion!

Despite the seriousness of the sins, Jude does not command a blanket disfellowship of the false teachers, much less of their deluded followers. His view is the same as that of Brother Thomas, who, in writing of the same period, stated his belief that the “Antipas” class could “contend earnestly for the faith” quite effectively and Scripturally even while continuing as members of very imperfect ecclesias (Eur 1:335).

Much more is inferred from Jud 1:3 than the context will bear. True, there are times when brethren must “contend for the faith”, but must that “contention” involve the excommunication of guilty, possibly guilty, and uninformed “toleraters” alike? And how much of all the “contention” which seeks its justification from Jud 1:3 is contention for one’s own views and opinions and importance rather than contention for the faith?

“It is easy for men to deceive themselves into thinking that unrighteous and unjust extremes are simply the evidence of their zeal for truth. Even a readiness to listen to the accused is regarded as weakness. Such extremists cry shame on the very effort to be fair, and in their determination to have no compromise with error they sometimes exaggerate faults, and so grossly misrepresent the objects of their attack that they become guilty of offences worse than all the error against which they are trying to fight. We must not fall into the mistake of taking an extreme view even of the extremist. God has been merciful to such men in the past, and we must be merciful now even in our thoughts. We may state most emphatically, however, that it is wrong to exaggerate the faults of anyone or to find ugly and misleading names with which to label those who do not quite see eye to eye with us. It is quite possible to be valiant for the Truth and zealous for the Lord without being unfair even to those who are mistaken, and it is always wrong to be unfair. In faithfulness we must point out the danger that in great zeal for the jots and tittles of the law men may lose sight of the foundation principles. All their faith and works may become valueless through lack of charity” (IC, “The Scriptural Principles Governing Controversy”, Xd 61:344; see Lesson, Collyer on Controversy.)

It is not necessarily true, then, that all contention is proper or profitable. Jude has more to say of contention than simply in Jud 1:3: It is possible, he says, that men, in thinking they do God service, may “speak evil of those things they know not” (Jud 1:10), and in their accusations and antagonisms become as “raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame” (Jud 1:13). “Indeed there is a spirit which strives against impurity which is itself impure; furthermore where the spirit is right but the method is wrong there may be a generation of heat without light” (C Tennant, “The Epistle of Jude”, Xd 104:404). James adds his voice to the same effect: “Whence come wars and fightings (contentions!) among you?” Because you are zealous to contend for the truth? Not always! “Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?” (Jam 4:1)

We must always remember that the greatest abhorrence of sin is not necessarily found in the one who is most condemning of the sinner, and that in contention for truth the loudest and most self-confident voice is not always the best. The example of Christ should serve us well when we are faced with ecclesial problems. From him we learn that patience and tact and love and prayer are our most effective tools. We do possess a “sword”, and we may finally have to use it. But let us not rush headlong into every controversy with it drawn. Like the surgeon’s scalpel, it must be the last resort, after all other possible healing attempts have conclusively failed.