Jesus loved all his disciples, but there was something very special and unique about John. It must have been because of John’s special character; it was certainly not mere favoritism. The depth and closeness of love depends upon mental and spiritual affinity; it is limited only by the comprehensions and capacities of the participants. John was especially beloved because of a deeper unity with the mind of his Master.

“John was the first to believe after the resurrection when he saw the empty tomb. Though not prominent in the history, John wrote the deepest gospel, the deepest epistle (this one) and the deepest prophecy (Rev)” (GVG, “Fellowship with Him”, Ber 56:274).

John was the disciple chosen by the Holy Spirit to record the deepest and most beautiful expressions in Scripture of “fellowship”. His searching words reach far beneath the thin veneer of man-made “fellowship” and man-instigated “disfellowship”; even those verses (1Jo 1:6,7) which are often quoted to justify rapid and ruthless “cutting off” will be seen under a closer inspection to have a fuller, richer significance.

“There is only one major book in the Scriptures which may be said to deal specifically with the subject of fellowship, and significantly it was penned at the very close of the apostolic age: 1 John. Its origin is linked with the departure from fellowship of a substantial and influential group of members:

‘They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us’ (1Jo 2:19)” (AE, “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century”, Xd 108:212).

It is worthwhile to note this, in the epistle which has more to do with “fellowship” than any other: The primary resolution of an ecclesial disagreement was not the excision of the unfaithful by the faithful, but the final withdrawal from the faithful by the unfaithful. Obviously, this is not the only prescribed method for dealing with error or misconduct, but all too often we lose sight of the fact that it is one divinely-approved outcome! The extremist’s position is that an otherwise righteous brother may become unrighteous through a passing association with unrighteous men, regardless of his endeavors to uphold the Truth personally. But to John this is just not the case! There is no condemnation of the faithful remnant even though they were “tolerating” errorists in their midst. (The OT affords at least two similar instances of the unfaithful withdrawing from the “one body”: “Every man to his tents, O Israel” of Sheba in 2Sa 20:1, and “What portion have we in David?” — the revolt of the ten tribes — in 1Ki 12:16.)

It is safe to assume there is at least one statement of Brother Thomas that is never quoted by the “pure fellowship” advocates. Towards the end of his life, in 1870, he wrote the following words:

“It is not my province to issue bulls of excommunication, but simply to shew what the truth teaches and commands. I have to do with principles, not men. If anyone say that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh common to us all, the apostle John saith that that spirit or teacher is not of God; is the deceiver and the anti-Christ, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ; and is therefore not to be received into the house, neither to be bidden Godspeed (1Jo 4:3; 2Jo 1:7,9,10). I have nothing to add or to take from this. It is the sanctifying truth of the things concerning the ‘name of Jesus Christ’. All whom the apostles fellowshipped, believed it; and all in the apostolic ecclesias who believed it not — and there were such — had not fellowship with the apostles, but opposed their teachings; and when they found they could not have their own way, John says, ‘They went out from us, for they — the anti-Christ — were not all of us’ (1 John 2:19). The apostles did not chase them out, but they went out of their own accord, not being able to endure sound doctrine (2Ti 4:3).

“Then preach the word, etc, and exhort with all long-suffering and teaching. This is the purifying agent. Ignore brother this and brother that in said teaching; for personalities do not help the argument. Declare what you as a body believe to be the apostles’ doctrines. Invite fellowship upon that basis alone. If upon that declaration any take the bread and wine, not being offered by you, they do so upon their own responsibility, and not on yours. If they help themselves to the elements, they endorse your declaration of doctrine, and eat condemnation to themselves.”

“That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1Jo 1:3).

By “we” John must mean the apostles, who heard and saw and touched the living Christ “from the beginning” (1Jo 1:1,2). The apostles were commissioned to share this living reality with others, that they might have fellowship with the apostles, but primarily that they might through that knowledge have personal fellowship with God and His Son. The oneness depends upon our learning and accepting and harmonizing ourselves with the revelations of the apostles.

“And what is fellowship? We must ever be on guard against letting technicalities take the place of realities. Fellowship is not an external agreement to associate, but communion, harmony, unity of mind and spirit….Fellowship with God is not just a technicality — not just a form — not just the accepting of certain beliefs or joining a certain group. It is a way of life — a thinking like God, a walking in harmony with His revealed will and commands” (GVG, Ber 56:274,277; see also John Marshall, “The Living Ecclesia”, Xd 108:55,56).

We do not make the rules governing this fellowship, nor for that matter did our “pioneer brethren” in the last century! “Fellowship” is not like “the law of the land”, with higher courts of human judges, case histories to memorize, and a confusing array of legal precedents established before we were born.

True Biblical fellowship is a way of life, a life renewed in the image of our Lord Jesus Christ. Each brother and sister shares the fellowship of a common bond, an awareness of God’s love and mercy in Christ extended toward all Christ’s brethren. For a brother to claim oneness with Christ, but to treat lightly or harshly his oneness with his brethren, for each of whom Christ died, is to miss the mark entirely. A brother acting in an unloving or unforgiving way toward another brother may suppose that he is cutting that person off from true fellowship, and perhaps making his own position more secure. But in reality he is violating the supreme law of his Saviour’s life, the law confirmed by his shed blood; he is loosening the bond of love and forgiveness that binds him to Christ, for:

“If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar” (1Jo 4:20).

“And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full” (1Jo 1:4).

This is the whole purpose of John’s epistle — to exhort to a meaningful faith which results in a joyful life, not to recount a form of words without power. Joy is the great identification, the “secret ingredient” of the Truth which defies the art of the apothecary. Do we confuse the “counterfeit” fellowship of rules and laws and prohibitions with the “real” — a life of loving service, of openness and warmth? Rules are necessary in a certain measure, but they must be applied with love and joy, in the spirit of unity and cooperation; otherwise they become a dead Pharisaic letter to those who observe them. Love and joy must cast out fear — the unscriptural fear of contamination that hides behind legalities and never realizes the “joy” which is at the heart of the Truth! Jesus touched the defiled, the dying, and the dead with impunity, because the power of light and joy was stronger than darkness and fear. It is not that from without which defiles the spiritual man, but if within his heart there has never been engendered the joy of the Truth — a joy that flows out to embrace others, to seek peace and unity and mutual edification — then he is “defiled” indeed!

“If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1Jo 1:6,7).

In keeping with our theme, it must be noted here that the emphasis is upon “walking”. We reveal whether or not the Truth has made an impression upon us by our personal conduct, by the extent our lives have been transformed by the Spirit-power of the word and prayer. “Light” undoubtedly does originate in true beliefs, but true beliefs are not an end in themselves — as may be mistakenly supposed if one’s life in the Truth has been one long continuous “warfare” against error. Let us beware of imbalance here; let us also beware of misapplication of such verses as these, to justify an extreme position.

Another point arises from 1Jo 1:7: The conditional portion of the sentence specifies that we must “walk in the light as he is in the light.” If we take a rigid “fellowship” stand on such a passage as this, then let us be honest: Let us realize that a comparison with God and Christ in regard to “light” places us all — every one — on the wrong side! Alongside God and the perfect man, we are, relatively speaking, all in “darkness”, and if “darkness” nebulously defined is the ground of excommunication, then none of us deserves fellowship with God and Christ. But of course, this is true! None of us deserves to be included in God’s Family; it is the gift of God. Let us wrap ourselves in the robe of His “light”. It is a warming, cheering, health-giving, joyful blanket of love and hope. Here is the “fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.”

The All-wise Father does not teach His children by simple assertion only; if He did, then our Bible would need be no more lengthy than our Statement of Faith. But He teaches us also by type, parable, history, prophecy, and example. Foremost among the examples given for our instruction is His only-begotten Son. The example of Christ’s sacrificial life, culminating in a cruel, lingering death, speaks volumes to the reflective soul.

Isa 53 is a mountain peak of God’s Word. Let us simply consider the chapter as it relates to our experiences and responsibilities, as a moral issue and not a “theological” one (in the common sense of the word).

No man of faith can stand before the cross. It is perpetually holy ground — this mysterious place of meeting between God and man. The perceptive disciple approaches the mercy seat on his knees; he finds there no place to display his own strength or wisdom or cleverness. All the qualities that develop pride in natural man are driven from him further and further with each blow of the hammer upon the Roman spikes. As his awareness deepens, he must finally acknowledge that the cross of Christ has become, not a set of logical premises to be sharpened and polished in legalistic debate, but rather a moral mandate. As the rising of the sun drives away the darkness and creates each day a new world, God’s love for man as demonstrated in Christ’s death and resurrection forever changes the spiritual landscape for the believer. Every issue of his life must now be viewed in the peculiar divine glow emanating from Golgotha.

And thus our fellowship, with the Father and the Son and with one another, is seen against the background of Christ’s sacrifice. Here is the practical expression of his fellowship with us, his brethren. This should be our example of action toward one another.

To those of us who have been accustomed to read Isa 53 as related only to the last day or so of our Savior’s mortal life, the quotation in Mat 8:16,17 comes as quite a surprise:

“When the evening was come, they brought unto him many demoniacs… and he healed all that were sick: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, ‘He took our infirmities and bore our diseases.’ “

Surely these verses are telling us that Christ’s sympathy for poor suffering humanity was an intensely personal feeling. We can imagine no stronger words to convey the closeness, the unity, the fellowship of suffering. Here is no theoretical transferal of guilt or sin-effect; there is no ritual, no ceremony about it — it is real, as real as it can be! This man was one of us. He stood before the tomb of a friend and shed real tears. Our weaknesses were his… are his still, this high priest who was touched so deeply with the sensation of our infirmities, and who carried it with him into the most holy place. For our griefs are his, our sorrows also. For us he was willing to die; for us, finally and conclusively, he did die. And not just for “us” as a whole or a concept or an abstraction, but… this is the real wonder… he died for each one of us! Had there been only one sinner, Christ would have still been willing to die. When each of us stands before the judgment seat, he will be looking into the eyes of a man who gave his life, personally and individually, for him.

Yes, it truly is a marvel: The Savior of mankind suffered for sinners. For the man who blasphemed God’s Holy Name, Christ spent sleepless nights in prayer. For the man who coveted, and even took, his neighbor’s wife, Christ denied himself all fleshly indulgences. For the man who in hot anger or cold hatred slew his brother, Christ bore the Roman scourge that tore his flesh and exposed his bones and nerves. And for us, “righteous” as we might be in the ordinary “middle-of-the-road” sense, but sinners at heart if we would but admit it, consumed with petty jealousies and grumblings, unthankful, lazy, and often indifferent — yes, for people like us — Christ, the holiest of all men, groaned and bled and died.

What does it really mean, to bear the griefs and sorrows of another? As exemplified in Christ, it was more, much more, than a mechanical “burden-bearing”. It was a “living sacrifice”, a way of life that denied the lusts of the flesh within himself, while at the same time loving and striving continuously for the wellbeing of his brethren who could not, or did not, so deny themselves. And when they failed, and failed miserably, he bore with their failures and never gave way to “righteous”, condemning anger — but only expressed sorrow and gentle rebuke. Was there ever such a man? “For even Christ pleased not himself” (Rom 15:3).

“The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all.” “He was wounded for our transgressions.” Here again we Christadelphians so quickly lapse into the “technical” aspects (the word here almost seems sacrilegious) of Christ’s sacrifice. We carefully point out that Christ did not bear the guilt of our sins, that he did not die in our steads. And there is nothing wrong with saying such things, in their proper place. But, is it not possible that we are missing the main point? Call it what you will, hedge it about with exceptions and careful definitions, when all is said and done, HE DID DIE — and that is the important issue!

Let us be careful here, let us examine ourselves. In our zeal for “truth”, are we so caught up in the theory that the fact is almost ignored? Do we suppose that when we have explained, in man’s imperfect language, why Christ died, on a legal basis — that our conception of the cross is complete? No, brethren. This man died because he loved to the uttermost his brethren. Here is the lesson. Christ’s way of life, the fellowship he practiced in regular interaction with his brethren, is the challenge to us. Do we perceive that love as an impossible theory — or as a reality, to be reproduced and practiced by us, here and now? Our Savior calls us, he commands us, he entreats us, insofar as we can, to do as he did. He sets before us an ecclesial life of difficulties, of sorrows, of problems — and he tells us: ‘Bear the infirmities, even the iniquities of your brethren. I died for them; you must live for them. I did not please myself; neither should you. They are all worth saving, they are all worth loving, they are all worth your sacrifices and prayers — or else none of you are worth it! If you really believe in my love, then you must believe that your ecclesial problems can be solved — and that love is the key to their solution.’

We break bread and drink wine as a memorial of our fellowship with God through Christ. We do not earn this right; it is a profound privilege and a gift, earned by the sufferings of Christ. It is given freely to sinners, if they will only believe. A fine record of outstanding accomplishment, accompanied by perfect purity of doctrine (remember our “brother” the Pharisee who prayed in the temple!), will not earn us eternal life. The spirit that compasses sea and land to bring division between brethren of Christ for the smallest hint of a cause will not earn eternal life, no matter how zealously exercised that spirit is!

“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good, and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Mic 6:8).

“I and my Father are one.” Can there be any simpler yet more profound description of true fellowship than these words of the Lord Jesus? In the days of his flesh the beloved Son of God made his Father’s will his own and glorified Hun in all his ways. The Father acknowledged the Son as the one “in whom I am well pleased” and glorified him with His own self. The sharing of the divine will which enabled Christ to identify himself so closely with God was completed by a participation in the divine glory and nature.

The sharing of a common aim, the doing of things together so that two or more may be as one, a bond created between giver and receiver — all these ideas are contained in the Scriptural concept of fellowship, of which the prime example is the relationship between God and a man begotten of Him yet of our nature, and described as “in the bosom of the Father”, declaring the glory of God, the Son whom the Father loveth and into whose hands He giveth all things. [The word “koinonia” occurs something like twenty times in the NT. It can refer (a) to sharing one’s goods or wealth with those in need, and may then be translated “contribution”, or “distribution”, or “to communicate” (Rom 15:26; 2Co 8:4; 9:13; Heb 13:16); (b) to participation in a common life of faith, which would include the Breaking of Bread (Acts 2:42; Gal 2:9; Phi 1:5; 2:1; 1Jo 1:3,4); (c) to association with the Lord Jesus Christ (which would also include the Breaking of Bread) and with his Father (1Co 1:9; 10:16; 2Co 6:14; 13:14; Eph 3:9; Phi 3:10; 1Jo 1:3,6).]

John 10:30; Mat 3:17; John 20:17; 1:18; John 3:35.

The Believers’ Fellowship with the Father and the Son

In this fellowship others may share. Indeed, the very will of the Father which the Son made his own was that other sons should be brought unto the same glory. “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth… that they all may be as one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us… And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

This was “the apostles’ fellowship”, but the Lord specifically included “them also which shall believe on me through their word”. The aim of the apostolic preaching of the things they had seen and heard, and of which they had been a part, was that those to whom it was declared “might have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son, Jesus Christ.”

John 17:19-21, 26; Acts 2:42; John 1:1-3.

The distinctive quality — indeed the distinctive test — of this fellowship is that it binds together those who by human standards seem to have nothing in common. Worldly “fellowships” aim to exclude those who have not the skill, knowledge, social status or money to belong to them. There is only one thing with which all men are by nature “in fellowship”, and that is sin and its consequences — a fellowship which does nothing to bind men together, but which leads to “wars and fightings”. It is when we realize the true nature of “fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” and our total inability to do anything about our condition, that we appreciate the greatness of the mercy of God who was “in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” and of the privilege of being called into fellowship with God and His Son. [There is a related verb, “koinoneo”, which is used in similar ways, (a) of giving to those in need (Rom 12:13; 15:27; Gal 6:6; Phi 4:15), (b) of the relationship between fellow-believers (Rom 15:27), and (c) of association with our Lord; though we have also here a negative use (Heb 2:14; 1Pe 4:13), (d) of having fellowship with forbidden deeds or doctrines, against which the saints are warned (1Ti 5:22; 2Jo 1:11; there is similar warning in use of “koinonia” in 2Co 6:14).]

James 4:1; Eph 5: 11; 2Co 5:19.

The Believers’ Fellowship with One Another

The believers’ fellowship with one another not only depends upon their relationship with the Father and the Son — it is an essential part of it. The idea that one can exist without the other has no support in Scripture. Divine fellowship is bound up with the corporate life and witness of a community: it is a living fellowship. For the perfection in unity of apostles and believers the Lord prayed, both so “that the world may believe that thou hast sent me”, and “that the world may know that thou hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.”

John declares in his first Epistle that unless our fellowship with each other is real, our claim to fellowship with God is a hollow sham. “He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen ?” The test of obedience is the test of love. “Living in the light” and having fellowship with God is not a matter of sentimental feelings and language, but of loving God in deed and in truth. It is the love of God in giving Jesus for our sins which makes it possible for us to join the family of God as His children, and therefore as brother and sister one with another. Those who walk in the light, as He is in the light, John says, may enjoy true fellowship with each other.

For a brother to claim this divine fellowship, but to treat lightly or harshly his relationship with his brethren, is to miss the mark completely. No distinction should be made between brother and brother on the grounds of social status, wealth or intellect, or claims to superior knowledge or enlightenment. The idea of an inner circle, a spiritual elite, is foreign to the apostles’ teaching. According to the Scriptures, “there is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Where the Scriptures make a. distinction between brethren, it is to impose upon “the strong” the duty of sustaining “the weak”.

Eph 4:15-16; John 17:21-23; 1Jo 4:9-16,20,21; 2:10; Jam 2:1-4; 1Co 12:12,13; Gal 3:28; Rom 15:1.

The Basis of Fellowship

What then is the basis of our fellowship? Is it the doctrine we have come to believe? Is the breaking of bread together this fellowship of which we speak? It is neither, yet it is both: it is greater than either and greater than their sum. The heart-searching message of the day of Pentecost which caused “all that believed” to be “together” and to have “all things common”, led to a joyful experience. Luke says, “They continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and in fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.”

The things believed led to a response in baptism; a new association with the Father and Son who came unto them and made their abode with them, as the Lord had promised; a fellowship with those of the same faith and obedience; a showing forth together of the Lord’s death and resurrection by the ”many” who were “one bread”; and the spiritual experience of the communal approach to the Father. In all these things “they continued stedfastly”.

So their fellowship was based not merely on an assent to the apostles’ doctrine, although it could not have existed without it; nor was it the act of breaking bread, although this could not have been omitted. It was not the charitable feeling or the sense of joy and gladness, although this was an essential characteristic of the sharers in a common faith. It was through the perseverance in all these things that fellowship was maintained, with the Father and Son and with each other. Basic beliefs found expression in a living fellowship of which each aspect was a natural part of the whole.

Acts 2:42 (RV); Acts 2:44-46; 1Co 10:16,17.

Persevering in Fellowship

There is a Scriptural doctrine of perseverance, which reveals fellowship as a continuous attention to the teaching and the practice of “the faith once delivered to the saints”, and a growing in grace and knowledge. The language of John 15 :16,17 shows that the Lord had chosen and ordained his disciples that they should keep on bearing fruit, the fruit itself should continue, the Father would never fail to give what was asked in Christ’s name, and those who kept his commands would persist in their love for one another. The believers were exhorted to “give diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”, because in the one body, one spirit, one faith, one hope, one Lord, one baptism, it was the one Father who was over, through and in all of them.

The test of continuance revealed those who were not “of us”, who only “endured for a while”. They did not “abide in the light”. Yet this “patience and faith of the saints” is not based upon personal will power and energy; it is achieved by those who humbly trust that He who “hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Christ”.

2Pe 3:18; John 15:16-17; Eph 4: 1-6; 1Jo 2:9; Rev 13:10; Phi 1:6.

The Statement of Faith

Practical necessity has forced upon us a use of the word “fellowship” which, regrettably, has often caused it to be given a technical rather than a spiritual sense. It is used as the equivalent of section or faction; it describes something which is withdrawn, resumed, or withheld; and even as a description of things shared in common, it has sometimes merely meant a common opposition to a view taken by some other group. All this is far removed from the spiritual meaning of the word as used by the Apostle John.

Even so, the attempt has been made to capture the spirit of the first century fellowship in our own ecclesial arrangements. The object of a statement of faith is to provide a basis of fellowship, not of disfellowship, although like the love of God itself, it is both inclusive and exclusive. When God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son for its salvation, it was evidence that He “will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” The limitation of “whosoever believeth in him”, however, upholds the very principles upon which that love was based. Although no formal set of words can guarantee true unity of the Spirit, our statement of faith is a human expression of what we accept as our common basis of belief; it is the framework of faith gleaned from the Scriptures. It is essential to recognize both its importance and its limitations.

Nowhere in Old or New Testament is there a systematic statement of faith. The Bible does, however, state principles and illustrate them by example in such a way as to convince us that such propositions as, say, “There is no immortal soul” are true. In addition it gives case histories which show how doctrinal propositions arose. If there were in Corinth for a short time some misguided people who said that there is no resurrection of the dead, it would have been impossible to retain such people “in fellowship” after Paul had written 1Co 15. Whatever is meant by “abiding not in the doctrine of Christ” and “confessing not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”, John’s instructions in his Second Epistle would emphatically exclude from the community the heretics who denied this doctrine. If there were those who would have tolerated incest in the community, they could have no title to do so after Paul had written 1Co 5.

In response to similar needs we have drawn up our own statement and although we must not impute to it inspiration or infallibility (a statement of faith is no substitute for the living faith itself), for Christadelphians, whose faith is Bible-based, it is a distillation of the truth we have agreed to hold “with one accord”. Because no human statement can be perfect and sufficient for all time, it will from time to time give rise to questions or discussions or interpretations — or even amendment as has been the case in the past.

1Ti 2:4; John 3:16; 1Co 15:12-23; 2Jo 1:9-11; 1Co 5; 1Ti 1:15; 4:9, etc; Acts 1:14; 2:1; 2:46.

The Scriptures the Basis

It is the Word of God alone and not the Statement of Faith which produces faith. When someone wishes to become a Christadelphian, the question is not primarily whether he accepts the Statement of Faith but whether he holds the Bible teaching on which it is based. It is important to have our priorities right and not impute to any human writing, whoever wrote it, the power to produce saving faith and to be the authoritative basis for it. This is not to underestimate the value of the Statement: it is simply to put it in perspective.

The value of the Statement of Faith and its importance in fellowship is that it is a definition of what we have agreed to hold as Scripture teaching in all its essentials. [Statements other than the Birmingham Amended Statement have always been regarded as acceptable amongst ecclesias in the Central Fellowship, provided that they uphold the same Bible Teaching.] Viewed negatively, where there is no common faith there can be no true fellowship, because we cannot share that relationship with each other which is an essential part of our fellowship with the Father and the Son. Put positively, the Statement of Faith can form a basis of fellowship — a conviction of the common faith which issues in baptism and a promise to be Christlike — but only if we couple with the tenets of belief the life to be lived. Because the Statement of Faith says much about the one and little about the other, and to this extent is incomplete, some have tended to produce an imbalance of emphasis as between believing and living. [In many ecclesial constitutions the inclusion of The Commandments of Christ helps to correct this imbalance, provided they are the object of regular reflection through the daily readings, prayer and meditation.] Indeed, it is a grave error to attempt to separate the two, as though we could be truly believing without becoming like Christ, or truly growing in Christ without believing. Belief is no mere assent to a set of principles: it is a relationship between God and man based on an acceptance of the Word of God.

The Need for Order In the Community

It is clear from the reading of the Old and New Testaments that community life is part of worship. A community needs order and method in what it does, otherwise it will sow the seeds of its own destruction. The New Testament makes it plain that the apostles expected the ecclesias to have decency and order in their arrangements, but the same apostle who wrote, “Let all things be done decently and in order”, also wrote, to the same ecclesia, “Let all your things be done with charity.” Some of our ecclesial behaviour may smack more of law than of grace; and it behoves all of us, not least those who have charge of our affairs, to remember that two quite different duties, both alike Christian, confront us. The one says that a community of people accepting a common basis for their association should not encourage its members to treat lightly the basis which they have undertaken to uphold. The other says that there are varying degrees of proficiency in the Scriptures among our members, and bids, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” Through differences in age (the very old and the very young being specially vulnerable), and training, and disposition, ability to grasp the fine distinctions which some doctrinal discussions involve, and to make wholly logical deductions from accepted premises, varies enormously from member to member. Precious though the gift of precise thinking may be, it can become unbearably tyrannical if over-pressed; and we must beware of the danger of making it seem that salvation, or even fellowship itself, is a matter of competence in logic and consistency in exposition. On the other hand, mere dogmatism unsupported by sound Scriptural reasoning, is not conducive to healthy fellowship. If we administer the letter of the Statement of Faith without regard for its spiritual meaning, we have forsaken Christ for a system of justification which cannot be supported by Scripture. The teaching of Christ and of the Gospel through all Scripture is clear enough: “For if righteousness came by the law, then Christ died in vain.”

On the other hand, if any man would play fast and loose with the Statement of Faith by driving his heretical chariot through “legal” loopholes in the wording, he has missed the meaning of fellowship and the proper use of our common basis. We are not to seek cover for any fundamental differences between ourselves and those with whom we are in fellowship by exploiting flaws in the human wording which gives expression to that fellowship. The warm spirit of fellowship which does exist between brethren throughout the world has grown in a community with the Statement of Faith as its agreed basis. It is not honourable to enjoy the one without accepting the other. If our views are unquestionably and fundamentally at variance with the plain intention of the Statement of Faith, then the honourable thing is to acknowledge this difference and to make it plain that we cannot subscribe to the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship as understood by the Christadelphians. We must not mistake laxity for grace. We must uphold in a spirit of love and compassion the Statement upon which fellowship is based, but this does not mean that we need not observe it or call upon others to do so.

Gal 2:21 (RV); 1Co 14:40; 16:14.

The Need to Uphold the Basis

We do rightly therefore, when interviewing prospective members of our community, to ensure for their sakes and ours that we have a common understanding and belief. It follows that any member who unquestionably departs from this position and does not respond to loving appeals to preserve the unity of belief, has already broken the bond of fellowship with his brethren and the ecclesia confirms this in its reluctant act of withdrawal. The same is true of behaviour unworthy of the name of Christ, if this is not repented of and acknowledged.

Since each ecclesia has agreed to hold as the basis for its existence the written expression of its beIiefs as found in the Statement of Faith, it is in honour bound to uphold that. Each ecclesia is the custodian for its own members of that common faith. The members have given willing assent to that faith when seeking fellowship with the ecclesia and the community of eccIesias which form the Brotherhood. No member may teach doctrines clearly inconsistent with that faith nor ought an ecclesia to retain in its fellowship one so acting. It is noteworthy that in his epistles Paul addresses individual ecclesias as though they were the whole household of God, and in his commendation of his fellow helpers from one ecclesia to another, assumes a spiritual relationship between them. Each ecclesia administers its own affairs, but it does so upon common principles which must be upheld. Our Brotherhood throughout the world exists only because we have agreed to behave in that way.

Rom 1:5,6; 1Co 1:2; 2Co 1:1; 1Th 1:1; etc; Rom 6:1-4; 1Co 16:10,19-20, etc.

The promulgation of a doctrine inconsistent with our mutual faith, the disruptive influence of personalities, or often a combination of these things, produces schism. But whether the schismatic influence arises through doctrine or behaviour, it is no excuse for the rest of the ecclesia or Brotherhood to drive the wedge deeper between brother and brother. Schism as a policy is wrong: it is roundly condemned in Scripture as one of the “manifest works of the flesh”. Brethren in Christ must practise reconciliation, atonement and unity, not seeking to expose sins but to recover the sinner. They have no authority from Christ to mark up the failings of others and to make known from the housetops their deviations and sin. “Love keeps no score of wrong, does not gloat over other men’s sins, but delights in truth.” We should be no wedge drivers but reconcilers, and not fall into the error of rejoicing more over the one sheep that is lost than over the one that is found, over withdrawing fellowship rather than restoring it.

Gal 5:20; 2Ti 2:24-26 (RV); 1Co 13:6 (NEB).

Dealing with Error

What then if there is persistent and unmistakable error? If the ecclesia is to live up to its name, then it must seek to find unity, and only when all else has failed will it contemplate severing fellowship. Meanwhile, other ecclesias should not seek to pronounce their own judgments or to ventilate the alleged errors of brethren not under their care. From wide experience, it can be said that facts are hard things to ascertain on the spot, let alone at a distance. Moreover, the spoken exchange is frequently very different from extracts which appear in writing and words spoken under duress are given various interpretations according to the mood of the reader.

Ecclesias should understand that they do not live to themselves. Their decisions matter, since they form the. basis not only of fellowship within their ecclesial family circle but also with the wider Brotherhood. Decisions should be arrived at honourably and in full accordance with our mutual basis, and when so reached they should be respected by other ecclesias. For other ecclesias to push too far their own differing judgments against an individual brother, or against an ecclesia, produces fragmentation and ecclesial anarchy. If a brother who has been withdrawn from by his home ecclesia seeks to join another, the first step which the second ecclesia must take is to ascertain, with discernment and charity, from the brother himself and from his former ecclesia, what were the grounds of the loss of fellowship. There is no other circumstance in which the second ecclesia should become involved and there is no other way in which satisfactorily to heal the breach not only between the brother and the community but also between himself and his ecclesia. Nor is it open to the second eccIesia to receive the brother without thorough examination of the circumstances, in the hope that by ignoring the original breach some kind of restoration can be effected. Furthermore, if the issue is fundamental, it should not be difficult for both ecclesias to agree on what should be done, provided that the decision is based on Scriptural principles. If it is not fundamental, then there may be room for differences of judgment. In any case, the grounds for arriving at judgment by the ecclesias concerned should be clearly set forth. As provided for in the Ecclesial Guide, the second ecclesia might finally decide to accept the brother in the full knowledge of the circumstances and after full consultation with the first ecclesia. Though such cases are and should remain few, they may on occasions be inevitable.

Causes of Disharmony

All that being said, it should not be the custom for a brother withdrawn from in one ecclesia to go from ecclesia to ecclesia in the hope that one will finally accept him as a member. Such persistence inevitably leads to trouble. When dissension arises over cases of this kind, there is as much trouble from the personality of the brother as there is from his teaching. Our community has often suffered more from personality troubles than from other forms of heresy. There are those who cause disharmony among brethren irrespective of the particular views they hold. Anyone who aggressively persists in such action so as to separate true brethren is wrong in spirit.

Tit 3:10,11.

The position of individual ecciesias is more difficult to ascertain. For this reason extreme care is necessary in considering the relationships between one ecclesia and the rest of the Brotherhood. Very rarely will an ecclesia as a whole become the teacher of error; in such circumstances it would find itself at odds with neighbouring and other ecclesias. The question would thus be resolved by discussions between the ecclesias concerned. Occasionally, however, when differences of view arise concerning an individual brother, inter-ecclesial relationships should be determined by the general procedure indicated in the previous section. The whole subject merits further close consideration.

Respecting the Boundaries of Fellowship

It is one of the lamentable features of our community that over the years there have been schismatic influences which have in the end created separate “fellowships”. Looking back, it is possible to level criticism at the spirit and the method in which the affairs were carried through, or on the other hand it is possible to justify the action then taken. Of one thing we can be sure: no one ever knows all the facts, and if we imagine that the “fellowships” which now exist are the same as those which were created at the time of the separation, we shall almost certainly be mistaken.

But that is no excuse for ignoring the existing boundaries of fellowship. To act in such a way is to do despite to the brethren who have gone before and to treat irresponsibly the beliefs of ourselves and others. The boundaries must be respected until we find a means of healing the breach on sound and mutually accepted lines. Those who have had experience in repairing such breaches can testify that some of the greatest hindrances to their work have been brethren who moved irresponsibly between fellowships, as though barriers did not exist. The only way in which breaches can be healed is to proceed prayerfully, sympathetically, and truthfully with the Bible in hand and Christ in the heart, in order eventually to produce a common declaration of intent fully in accord with soundly based essential doctrines. In carrying out this process, no one has the right to hold an inquisition on individual brethren in the “other” fellowship. The responsibility lies with their ecclesias to apply the principles of the agreement. Witch-hunting, real or imaginary, is no part of the work of a servant of Christ. A right attitude to this would have saved the waste of tons of paper which has been shot like ammunition (and in the same spirit) from the homes of individual self-appointed judges or from upstart committees having no ecclesial basis. Our behaviour in these matters must be Christlike; we must know what spirit we are of. Idle gossip, rumour-mongering and the spread of malicious talk, which in other circles would be regarded as libelous, have no part in the household of God, whether the talk is about those within or those without. Those without God will judge: we must remember, however that in the long run judgment will come home to the house of God. With what measure we mete and with what judgment we judge, we shall ourselves individually and communally be assessed.

1Co 6:13; 1Pe 4:17; Mat 7:1-5.

Preserving the Unity already Attained

In the past two decades breaches between the Central Fellowship and the Berean brethren in America, the former Central and Suffolk Street Fellowships in Britain and in Australasia have been healed by patience and understanding and on sound principles. There was considerable rejoicing on earth when those events took place and we would hope to learn that heaven too shared the joy. Since then the world has become a small place and there is constant exchange of visits between all its parts — a powerful factor in the strengthening of communal bonds and the opportunity for greater understanding of each other, but bringing also the danger of the quick spread of any new rift or divisive tendencies. All the more reason then to be alive to our responsibilities and to the true basis for our fellowship — the living relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ and the revealed word. It is imperative that we “continue stedfastly” to practise peacemaking and to preserve unity, not at all costs, but as a principle by which we subsist. For us who have achieved so much under God’s blessing in the last two decades, it would be disastrous and culpable to forsake our true calling for internecine strife. Mutually destructive criticism were far better replaced by searching self-examination. Our brother’s deadly sins are no excuse for spreading our own poisonous talk. Our primary purpose must be his recovery and not his loss, and this can be achieved only by love and not by hate.

Being brethren of the same family and under the same Head, we should esteem any loss as his loss, and any gain as his gain, when righteously done in his name. All this is for a purpose and is not an end in itself. We are seeking an eternal fellowship for ourselves and should strive with all our hearts to ensure it for our brethren. “May the love of God and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” be with us until he come.

1Co 1:9-13; Rom 16:17,18; 2Co 3:14.

The Committee of The Christadelphian

December 1971

As to the first Adam and the last Adam, consider the comparisons (and contrasts) between Gen 1-3 and Rev 20-22:

GENESIS 1-3	REVELATION 20-22
A river watering the Garden (Gen 2:10-14)…	A river watering the Garden (Rev 22:1,2)
A companion made for the first Adam (Gen 2:18-25)…	A companion made for the “last Adam” (Rev 21:9,10)
Paradise lost (Gen 3:23)…	Paradise restored (Rev 21:25)
Tree of life lost (Gen 3:22)…	Tree of life regained (Rev 22:1)
Leaves for a covering, but to no avail (Gen 3:7)…	Leaves for healing (Rev 22:2)
Curse imposed (Gen 3:17)…	Curse removed (Rev 22:3)
Sorrow and death (Gen 3:16-19)…	“No more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev 21:4)
Man’s dominion (Gen 1:28) broken (Gen 3:19)…	Man’s dominion restored (Rev 22:5)
Serpent triumphant (Gen 3:13)…	Serpent bound (Rev 20:2,3), and then destroyed (v 10)
Adam and Eve separated from the presence of God (Gen 3:24)…	God dwells with man again (Rev 21:22,23; 22:3,4)
Heaven and earth separated (Gen 1:6)…	Heaven and earth brought together (Rev 21:1,2)

A WORLDWIDE FLOOD?

“All the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered” (Gen 7:19) and “every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground”. “Under the whole heaven” is found in Dan 7:27, where the kingdom of God covers the whole earth.

Possible objections:

1. the ark, big though it was, would not seem to be large enough to hold that many animals and a years’ supply of food;

2. how were these animals brought from remote, possibly bitterly cold parts of the earth to hot Mesopotamia?

3. what kind of food could Noah store in the ark for a year to feed all of these diverse species?

(1) Depth of flood: Gen 7:19,20.

(2) Duration of flood: 2/10: Went into ark (Gen 7:4,10). 2/17: Rain began (Gen 7:11), lasted 40 days (Gen 7:12). Waters lasted 150 days (Gen 7:24; 8:3). 7/17: Ark rested on Ararat (Gen 8:4). 1/1: Ark’s covering removed (Gen 8:13). 2:27: Ark vacated (Gen 8:14-19). Thus time in ark was 1 year 17 days: 5 months afloat, 7 months on Ararat. A local flood could not possibly last for such a long time.

(3) Vast geological disturbances: Gen 7:11.

(4) Size of ark: Gen 6:15.

(5) Need for ark.

(6) Peter’s witness: 2Pe 3:3-7.

(7) Widely-distributed human race: (a) Purpose of flood: to punish the whole race of man: Gen 6:5-13. (b) Only Noah, etc, spared: Gen 6:17,18; 7:23,24; 8:1. (c) Jesus: “all men”: cp Gen with Luk 17:26-30. (d) Noachic covenant was with all men: Gen 9:1-17. (e) Longevity of antediluvians. (f) Widely-scattered human fossils. Assume 10 generations, 18 children per generation: Then 10th generation = 774,840,979 (2 x 9 to the 9th power), excluding all previous generations.

“Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of the world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end” (John 13:1).

The Son of man was about to embark upon a great journey — he was going to the Father. In fulfilling the Passover imagery of his last mortal days, he was about to accomplish his ‘exodus’ at Jerusalem (Luke 9:31) by departing out of the “Egyptian” world, slain as a sin-covering lamb. Associated with this “journey” was the thought of love, a divine love, an “agape”. Jesus loved his brethren right to the end of his life or, as some versions put it, “to the uttermost”. “He now showed them the full extent of his love” (NIV).

His was a love that never faltered. The washing of the disciples’ feet showed the same abiding love that would sustain him only hours later in his trial and crucifixion. The self-sacrifice, the disposition of the servant, the devotion to others in passionate concern… they were all as evident here in the ‘little’ task as they would soon be in the great work!

We read that it was “during supper” (v 2, RSV) that Jesus, to whom the Father had committed all power and authority, rose from the meal, laid aside his outer garments, took a towel, a pitcher of water, and a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet (vv 3-5).

The laying aside of his garments was a preview of his coming crucifixion, when the centurions would strip his garments from him (John 19:23,24). This earlier incident shows his willingness to deny self, to give up all that he possessed, even simple dignity, in a totality of loving service to others.

Our Lord’s actions here arose out of the sad, sordid contentions of the apostles as to which of them was the greatest (Luke 22:24). Perhaps the seating arrangements at this special meal had brought to the surface again their latent rivalries and jealousies. In absolute disregard of Jesus’ parable of the high and low seats (Luke 14:7-11), they jostled for position while their leader looked on in dismay.

The immediate rebuke of their pretensions was most effective because at first no word was spoken. Jesus rose up from the position already taken at the table and, making provision, began to wash the feet of each disciple in turn. Why had this not been attended to already? Can it be that Jesus arranged that no servant be present to provide this service, simply in order to give the twelve a chance to show what they had learned from him? If so, then their failure could not have been more complete.

How silly they appear to us in hindsight! The more they maneuvered and schemed to win his attention, the more they lowered themselves in his eyes. The more successful they were in achieving a superficial priority, the less they impressed the one who could read their hearts. And the simplest deed, that would have won from him the desired smile of appreciation, was the last thing on their minds. Yes, how foolish they seem. But a moment’s reflection will certainly reveal to all of us cases of similar shortsightedness in our won dealings with our brethren.

They all sought honor from Jesus. Yet none of the men seems to have realized how great an honor it would have been for them to have washed his feet. It took a woman to do that, and to wipe his feet with her hair (Luke 7:37-50).

So he went systematically from one to the next. And all argument and discord froze on their lips, except for Peter, whose pride (still fuelled by a false sense of superiority to the others) provoked him to speak: “Lord, does thou wash my feet?” (John 13:6).

In reply to Peter’s protest, Jesus persisted. “You will understand better by and by why I must do this.”

Still Peter continued to protest, drawing a further rebuke from the Lord: “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me” (v 8).

So now Peter swings drastically to the other extreme: “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head” (v 9).

No, Peter, still you fail to understand. You have been ‘washed’ already, in your baptism, and you need now only to wash your feet (v 10).

Christ’s point is based on the custom of waking home barefoot after visiting the public baths, so that on arrival one who had so bathed would, although bodily clean, have yet to wash his feet.

Now the disciples had been washed from their sins in baptism and had risen to newness of life. They wore robes of righteousness, having been cleansed from their past sins. But their ‘walk’ in the Truth made their ‘feet’ dirty; they did not need to be re-immersed on that account, but they did need to have their feet washed. This Christ could do for the, and so necessary it was that if they omitted his cleansing they could have no ‘part’ (no fellowship) with him. Here at once is an exhortation to humility, a rebuke to pride, and a total overthrow of that flimsy fortress ‘justification by works’! Christ’s lesson was not lost on John, who could write years later:

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the Truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1Jo 1:8,9).

A Sacrament?

Finally Jesus was back at the table again:

“Know ye not what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you” (John 13:12-15).

These words have been wrested in attempts to prove that the Washing of Feet is as much a commandment (even a “sacrament”) as the Breaking of Bread, and should therefore be practiced along with it. (The Roman Catholic as well as some Protestant churches make this same mistake).

This teaching is erroneous on at least three different counts:

1. Concerning the Lord’s supper Jesus clearly commanded, “Do this”. (The verb in 1Co 11:25 is continuous in action: ‘Keep doing this!’) But concerning the washing of feet Jesus says, “I have given you an example (ie, a sample or a type), that you should do (not what, but) as I have done to you.”

2. The witness of the early church is useful. As in Acts 2:42,46, the Breaking of Bread was the very center and focus of all worship from the earliest days. On the other hand, the ritual of footwashing makes no appearance for more than 300 years.

3. Peter offers his inspired interpretation of this incident when he writes: “All of you be subject one to another, and be girded with humility” (1Pe 5:5) — as Jesus girded himself (John 13:4) for performing his service to the apostles. The practical display of humble and loving service had finally made its impression upon the headstrong Peter. Clearly, Peter is intent on the spirit of the incident rather than on the literal washing of feet.

Judas too

One special part of this scene rivets our attention: the picture of Jesus kneeling to wash the feet of Judas. Here is the best and the worst together; the perfect love of the Lord and the hateful bitterness of the betrayer at the same table. Shortly thereafter Philip would say to Jesus, “Lord, show us the Father” (John 14:8), only to receive the answer: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (v 9). They had perhaps expected a vision of blinding glory, thunder and lightning, the sound of trumpets. Instead, they saw… a man kneeling in their midst with a basin of water and a towel.

All the Father’s love was manifested in him: His goodness, His patience, His forbearance, His kindness even to the sinner and the ungodly. We realize, then, how necessary it was for him to perform this service for all, even Judas. Had Jesus passed him by, or waited until he left, then all following generations of disciples would have said: “You see, it’s all right to restrict our acts of kindness just to our friends.” But the love revealed by Jesus leaves us no such excuse. He who died for those who were yet sinners calls us to follow his example, and to love those who are most unloving and unlovely! It is a difficult task, made no easier by the mean-spiritedness and fleshliness of so many around us. So we do well always to remember that our service to others, whatever form it takes, is no less than service to Christ.

No matter how willing the mind may be to receive this truth in theory, the routine of life reveals a hundred instances of the most abject failure. Unless we are always aware of it, our outlook can become seriously twisted by constant association with the world’s false principles. Labor unions agitate and threaten and strike, holding in contempt the idea that they should ever render any “service” in a joyful, liberal fashion. All around us workers squirm and fret under rules and restraints, and scheme to get the most pay for the least effort. “But ye shall not be so… he that is chief, (let him be) as he that doth serve” (Luke 22:26).

Such humility is not a thing to be striven for. The greater the agonizing effort to achieve it, the more it eludes him who strives. What is needed is a quiet transformation of spirit through the continuing influence of Christ’s example, along with a complete disregard for the possible impression our “good deeds” may make upon others.

This incident teaches us something else again. As Christ does, so ought we to do. If he can forgive trespasses, how much more ought we! “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them” (John 13:17). We may feel as reluctant to forgive a brother’s sin, as we would to wash his feet, especially if he is one we are tempted to consider inferior. But Christ’s example, if it means anything, means that we must. How many ecclesial contentions would be ended, if one of the contending parties would humble himself sufficiently to be the first to do so!

A New Commandment?

“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:34,35).

How was this a new commandment? It had in fact been the most prominent theme of all of Christ’s ministry. Both the greatest commandment, and the second which was like unto it, involved love. Love was, furthermore, the root and foundation of the law.

This commandment was ‘new’ only in the sense that it was now being given the perfect interpretation in the life of Jesus. For the first time in human history a man stood before his fellows as the absolutely flawless embodiment of the Divine ideal of “agape”:

“This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man that this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (15:12,13).

Of all the challenges that face us in these last days, surely this is the greatest: to exemplify Christ’s love in all that we do and say, and thus through our practical knowledge of his sacrificial life to “show forth” his death until he come.