|
|
|
The figurative representation of the community of
believers by a human body was used by Paul to illustrate the diversity
of the gifts of the Spirit, none of which was to be regarded as more
important than another. Although the gifts are no longer held, the basic
principle is still true, that all members of the body of Christ are
equally important, whether Jew or Gentile, servant or master, male or
female. Between all there is a mutual sympathy and dependence that is
characteristic of true fellowship.
There is only one body of Christ. Paul told this
to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 12:12), to the Romans (Rom. 12:5), to the
Ephesians (Eph. 4:4), and to the Colossians (Col. 3:15). He did not mean
that there was one body in Corinth, another one in Rome, etc. All ecclesias are part of one worldwide community, collectively forming one
body. The division into local ecclesias is purely a matter of
geographical convenience, of no significance as far as the unity of the
body is concerned. If a member of one ecclesia suffers, members of the
whole body, worldwide, suffer with it. This is why it was the duty of
ecclesias in Greece to assist financially the poor saints at Jerusalem
(Rom. 15:27). The newly formed Thessalonian ecclesia soon made its
influence felt, not only in Greece, but even further afield (1 Thess.
1:7-8, 4:9-10). Not only were they commended for this by Paul, but
urged to do even better. Fellowship within the one body transcends all
geographical, ethnic and social barriers, and there is no Scriptural
authority for the belief that we should only be concerned with our own
ecclesia and immediate circle.
Who are the Members?
Entry into the body of Christ is by baptism (1 Cor.
12:13). However, once in the body, there are other things needful to
remain within. Paul wrote to the Colossians: "...you, that were sometime
alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he
reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy
and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: if ye continue in the
faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the
gospel ..." (Col. 1:21-23).
This shows that to remain in the one body requires
a continuance in faith.
It is possible to cut ourselves off from the body
of Christ, as Jesus tells us in John 15, using the figure of the vine.
He said: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is
withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are
burned" (John 15:6).
He then tells us how to prevent this from
happening: "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love ..."
(v.10).
Thus to gain entrance to the body we must be
baptised, but to remain in it we must continue in the faith and keep
Christ's commandments. One of these commandments, as frequently
explained in this Magazine, is to separate ourselves from unrepentant
wrongdoers. It is not a matter of cutting them off from the vine; only
they or the Divine husbandman can do that. Rather it is standing aside
from the wrong. Those who fail to separate when Christ's commands
require it, make themselves disobedient to the Lord, and therefore
become guilty, not by "association", but by actual disobedience, and
James tells us that to offend in one point is to be guilty of all (James
2:10).
Ecclesial Autonomy and the One Body
Ecclesial autonomy as advocated in some
Christadelphian circles undermines fellowship in the one body. There was
not ecclesial autonomy in the days of the apostles. Ecclesias did not
even choose their own elders; they were appointed by the apostles, who
kept overall control. When the problem of circumcision was raised,
individual ecclesias were not left to decide for themselves; it was
decided by the central committee of apostles at Jerusalem, aided by the
Holy Spirit (Acts 15). When it became known that all was not well at
Corinth, the matter was reported to Paul (1 Cor. 1:11; 5:1; 11:18), who
took appropriate action, not because he was a member of the Corinthian
ecclesia, but because he was an apostle and had the care of all the
churches (2 Cor. 11:28). It is sad to read the weak and devious
arguments used by some prominent writers to try and prove ecclesial
autonomy from the Acts and epistles, when it simply did not exist in
apostolic times, and would have been a denial of the authority of the
Holy Spirit and the apostles.
None of us has apostolic authority today, and
generally speaking it is expedient that ecclesias be left to deal with
their own problems because they best know the details surrounding the
problems. We must trust to the integrity of the ecclesia concerned to
deal with problems in a Scriptural manner. If, however, it becomes
obvious that the ecclesia is not following the commands of Christ in a
matter, that trust is betrayed and others must intervene to put them
back on the right path, as happened in the case of fornication in 1 Corinthians
Ch.
5.
Divisions and the One Body
A frequently heard question is, "If there is only
one body, why are Christadelphians divided?" Divisions are always sad,
and it is a natural human reaction to try and avoid them at all costs.
Nevertheless, Christ's commands are clear, and if we do not obey them,
we ourselves are causing division—our own separation from the body of
Christ, cutting ourselves off from the true vine. There is no point
whatever in trying to preserve the unity of the body if by doing so we
destroy the body altogether, and a religious community that makes its
own rules is useless.
Division is not prevented by ecclesial autonomy,
which merely masks it. When schism existed in the Corinthian ecclesia
(not, be it noted, over a doctrinal issue, but over personalities, 1 Cor.
1:12), the remedy was not to agree to differ, but to be of the same mind
and the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10). True unity can only exist where
there is unanimity on fundamental issues.
This question, "If there is only one body, why are
Christadelphians divided?" is basically flawed because its validity
depends on the questionable assumption that all Christadelphians are
members of the body. This was the kind of tragic mistake that Israel
frequently made in assuming that because they were descended from
Abraham and were validly circumcised, they were God's people whatever
they chose to do. But Isaiah said, "Your iniquities have separated
between you and your God", and Hosea is even more blunt: "Ye are not my
people, and I will not be your God" (Isa. 59:2, Hos. 1:9). In assuming
that if we are Christadelphians then we are automatically members of the body
of Christ, we could be making a similar blunder.
We say "could be" advisedly, because we do not
know for certain. Not one of us has sufficient knowledge or authority to
say who is in the body of Christ and who is not. Baptism, as we have
seen, is not enough, any more than circumcision was enough for Israel.
We do not know how many Christadelphians in Dawn, Central or any other
"fellowship" are truly members of Christ's body, and it is
equally possible that
there are some members outside the Christadelphian community who have
discovered the Truth for themselves.
The history of Israel teaches us that there is a
line beyond which the grace of God will not be extended. We do not know
exactly where that line is today, much less who is on either side of it;
neither should we speculate on the matter because that would be to usurp
the judgment of Christ. Rather than assume that all Christadelphians are
within the body of Christ, a wiser and humbler question would be, "If
there is only one body, how can I ensure that I remain in it?"
The Letters to the Seven Churches
There are many who sincerely believe that in the
letters to the seven ecclesias in Revelation Ch's 2-3 there is support for the idea
of ecclesial autonomy and even for toleration of false teachers in one's
own ecclesia. Some examples of the arguments used are as follows:
-
"Ephesus was not blamed for
not taking action against Laodicea." (L.G Sargent, The
Christadelphian July 1965, p.321).
-
"Smyrna was not held
responsible for the sins of Laodicea..." (I. Collyer, Principles and
Proverbs, p.81).
-
"One looks in vain for any
reprobation against the few (in Sardis) because they continued to be
members of such a deplorable ecclesia ... (In Thyatira there was)
false teaching by a false prophetess and evil living! Nevertheless,
'I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have
already, hold fast till I come.' Remarkable!" (H.A. Whittaker,
Exhorting and Testifying, p. 126-127).
-
"Smyrna ... weren't
rebuked for not disfellowshipping the other local ecclesias who
were apostate." (D. Heaster, Who should I fellowship?, p.9).
These arguments do sound plausible on the surface,
but do not bear close scrutiny.
First, one of the objects of the letters was to
point out to the ecclesias that they were wrong to harbour false
teachers. To use the letters to support toleration of false brethren is
to use them to support the very thing they were written to condemn. One
could just as logically argue that because there was schism in the
Corinthian ecclesia, we need not do anything about schism today, yet it
is very doubtful whether any of the above writers would accept that
argument.
Secondly, separation from wrongdoers should be the
last resort, when all attempts at repentance and reformation have
failed. Clearly that stage had not been reached except for the majority
in Sardis. The others were still being urged to repent. Paul, following
Matt. 18.15-17, told Titus, "A man that is an heretick after the first
and second admonition reject" (Titus 3.10). For the duration of the
first and second admonitions, the heretic would nominally remain a
member of the ecclesia. Surely no one would suggest that Jesus would
hold the ecclesia responsible for that, provided it eventually
implements the final stage if the admonition has no effect.
Thirdly, to use the letters to justify ecclesial
autonomy, it would have to be proved that the good ecclesias knew what
was going on in the bad ones. An ecclesia cannot be held responsible for
something that it knows nothing about. No such proof exists.
Fourthly, the arguments are based on some very
doubtful assumptions. How do we know that Ephesus or Smyrna had not
separated themselves from the other ecclesias? We do not know. In fact,
there is a hint (no more, admittedly) that Ephesus may have done so, for
it says that they could not bear those that were evil, and the
Scriptural way of showing that would have been by withdrawal.
Fifthly, why do those who use these letters to
support non-withdrawal from false teachers in one's own ecclesia never
quote Pergamos? They were rebuked, not because they held false doctrine
themselves, but because they had false teachers among them. If we select
only those Scriptures that appear to support our case and ignore those
that don't, we can make the Scriptures appear to teach anything, from
the Trinity to heaven-going at death. This is not the way to use God's
holy Word, which was given for our guidance, not for us to use to
support our own ideas. In the seven letters themselves, we are exhorted
to listen to what the Spirit says to all seven churches, including
Pergamos, who were commanded to repent. The only way they could repent
from having false teachers in the ecclesia would be to withdraw
themselves from them.
It does not seem likely that the Spirit would
rebuke Pergamos and commend the faithful few in Sardis if they were
guilty of the same fault. This suggests that the few in Sardis may well
have been doing what Pergamos was failing to do, and were standing aside
from the majority. The wording of the letter does not preclude this,
"Sardis" referring not to the ecclesia, but to the town.
All these are only suggestions as to what was likely to have been
happening. Nobody today knows the truth of the matter because we are not
told all the circumstances. It is very dangerous to assume that we do
know, and to base on that false assumption rules of conduct which
contravene the clear commands of the Scriptures in other places.
In the case of Thyatira, it is misleading to imply that the only burden
laid on the ecclesia was to stand firm. This is not the meaning of the
original text. The Revised Version emphasises the correct meaning more
accurately:
"To the rest that are in Thyatira... I cast
upon you none other burden. Howbeit that which ye have, hold fast
till I come."
The word "howbeit", or "nevertheless", as it is in
some translations, shows that the burden and the holding fast were two
different things. The burden put upon them was to do something about
what the Spirit held against them, namely, failing to prevent the
prophetess seducing the ecclesia. It would not have been held against
them if it was allowable.
Thus it will be seen that, when
the letters are read properly, far from condoning the toleration of
wrongdoers in the ecclesias, they teach the very opposite, in harmony
with the rest of the Scriptures.
"He that hath an ear, let him
hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." |
