Thursday, July 5, 2012

What is the basis of Christian fellowship?

Here is a question that I received from a fellow Christian and my answer to it.  It is a VERY important question, which is why my answer is so long!  (For your information, I am a member of the Churches of God, which you can find out more about at www.churchesofgod.info)


Question: I would like to understand your church's rationale for excluding godly, consistent Christians from the fellowship of the Lord's communion?

Answer:  Your question seems to boil down to “what is the basis of Christian fellowship”?  Is it perhaps a) being a believer, b) being a godly and consistent Christian (however that might be defined) or c) something more?  Allied to that, what then, does that fellowship consist of?

It seems to me that this is one of the fundamental questions that has been posed and answered in different ways by parts of the Brethren movement over the last 150 years or so.  The Churches of God are not alone in effectively answering “option c) with option a) being a “given” and option b) being “an expectation” to that question. 

The way your question is worded of course, seems to accentuate the negative and could also imply that this “exclusion” is based on a sense of moral or spiritual superiority.   I would put it to you though that such a “separation” is really a case of being positively separated “to”, rather than separated “from”.  Separation to what? Separation to the pattern of divine service that we see throughout the Bible.  We simply see no alternative in this present age in order to be able to faithfully attempt to give expression to it.

Jesus prayer in John’s gospel was that his followers should be one - that there should be unity.  What was this prayer aiming at?  The Church, the Body was, and is, automatically perfect in every way, there is no division in it and the gates of Hades shall not overcome it.  There was no need for him to pray for its unity.  He must have been talking about something else – a local expression (if you can call it that) of the Church the Body, some kind of entity where unity was at risk.  But what is that local expression based on?  Is it membership of the Body, where two or three meet in the Lord’s name?  This is the answer that many would give.


The context of Matthew 18 19-20 is not the church the body, but a congregation prior to this dispensation. We apply it to church life today in respect to the congregation dealing with someone who refuses to repent of sin. It specifically refers to the church asking the Lord to do something. Extending its application as the basis for all gatherings of believers is, I submit,  very questionable.


Having said that, it would seem to me to be the case that there would certainly be some capacity to express unity on this basis of fellowship, and many can testify to that I am sure – and we are thankful to God for that.  But it does seem to be at risk of being either fragile, transient and/or also in a very limited scope.   There could easily be a situation where a group of one believers in a town are unified in doctrine and conduct, and there is another set of believers in the same town which are also unified, but the two groups differ in any number of ways, whether it be on matters of doctrine or discipline or some other matter.  One believer who broke unity with his “group”, or was disciplined by them, could simply transfer allegiance to another group.  You will probably know of many examples of this.

Could there be, and should there be, any broader and deeper expression of unity in view?  More to the point, what is the basis of achieving unity that we see in the Acts and the Epistles?  We would make the case that there is indeed a broader expression possible - which occurs in the New Testament in churches of God.  We view the churches of God as not being synonymous with the Church the Body, there being a number of very clear distinctions laid out in scripture, some of which include:

-          No gender distinctions in the Body of Christ, gender distinctions in the church of God (1 Cor 14:34)

-          No leadership required in the Body of Christ, overseers and deacons in the Church of God – (Phil 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:2,8,15)

-          No discipline required in the Body of Christ (as perfect), discipline required in the church of God (1 Cor 5:13)

-          Body of Christ includes believers who have gone home to be with the Lord, the Church of God only contains people who are still alive and therefore are capable of attending a church in a certain place associated with a Church of God (1 Cor 1:1)

-          Membership of the Body of Christ is permanent and unconditional, membership of the Church of God may not be permanent and is conditional (Hebrews 3:6)

Having seen that a church of God is different from the Body of Christ, we recognize that there needs to be a definite and different entry point into it.  We believe that the scriptural pattern for entry is not a self-gathering but being added by the Lord to an existing group – as in the case of the fledgling Church of God in Jerusalem in Acts 2:41,42.    The only two criteria for being added are noted in these verses – salvation and baptism.  Further, this addition is by no means casual or temporary, nor is the group itself viewed as such – the picture of the lampstand in Revelation speaks to an ongoing light and witness.

Acts 2:41,42 go onto describe the remaining four of seven steps that characterize the activities of a church of God – continuing steadfastly in the Apostles teaching, the Breaking of Bread, the fellowship and the prayers.  We view Acts 2:41,42 as something of a synopsis of Matt 28:20 and linked to Jude v3 – the faith once for all delivered to the saints.  It is on the basis of this subscription to the faith, not simply a common salvation, that we have a basis for fellowship.  (It should be noted that we hold the vast majority of the articles of the faith in common with the brethren movement – particularly, but not limited to,  the work and person of Christ, doctrine related to the Holy Spirit and eschatology).

As an aside, we take the view that all the instances of the breaking of the bread noted in the New Testament relate to the activity of a church, not a casual association of believers.  It seems that Paul deliberately stayed behind where there was a church in order to break bread.

Our understanding is also that it is the divine pattern for only one Church of God to occur in every city.  We read of various “companies” in places like Jerusalem but Paul is very clear in only referring to all the believers in a locality as “the church”.  Paul’s instruction to Titus to appoint elders in every church would support our view that companies in a locality would all fall under the authority of the elders of the whole church there and not simply “company elders”.  And so, unity would be able to be expressed at this level – the locality.

But is there something more?  We believe yes.  I always find it remarkable when people hold a position that the churches of God that Paul went around and visited (and helped to plant in many cases) were intended to (and did) operate autonomously from each other.  I would love to hear other points of view.  Conceptually, it doesn’t make sense to me that Paul would have taught (from God) differently in each place or expected different moral standards or approaches to discipline?  In fact, in 1 Corinthians 11, he makes the point that the Churches of God have no other practice than the one he expounds, in relation to head covering!  The Jerusalem council of Acts 15 and the communication afterwards also indicates a desire for unity of doctrine to be expressed amongst all Churches of God.  Why do we think things should be any different today?  Isn’t God glorified by such an expression of unity across churches?

Two key verses seem to talk about this collective worship that God desires:
“you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:5)

“but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.  In him the whole (other versions say every or each several ) building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.  (Ephesians 2:19-22)

It is our position that all believers in the body of Christ are “living stones” and all are individual priests.  But God’s pattern is that they should be built together to become a) a functioning priesthood and b) a place for him to dwell, foreshadowed by the Old Testament Priesthood and dwelling places of God (Tabernacle and Temple).

How does this process of building together (or being “fitly framed”) happen – is it automatic?  How does this priesthood serve, where and on what basis?  Our position is that God’s plan is for individual churches of God aggregated together to form the house of God with holy priesthood service (before God) carried out in heaven (as per Hebrews 10:19-22, 6:19) and royal priesthood service (before men) on earth.  They serve, according to the pattern laid out, just as he laid out a prescriptive pattern of service in the Old Testament.

Now, it is vital to state that we believe that the above is God’s pattern for ALL believers and this would have been carried out in the early years of the church.  The countless schisms that we have seen over centuries completely eroded the deep and broad unity that once existed.   A vibrant, organic movement was replaced with rigid denominationalism which the brethren movement rightly sought to escape from.  But, to quote the title of a recent book on the subject:  Are We Missing Something?”

Going back to the wording of the original question - there can be no sense of superiority of any kind – people in the organization known as Churches of God today are of no better “quality” than any other believers or group of believers.    We are simply aiming to carry out the pattern that we see (the mold that we have been delivered to (Rom 6:17) - to do otherwise would be disobedient.  If others do not see it, that is up to them - we will all have to answer for what we have done in our churches.   But, in practical terms, how would it be possible to give effect to it, whilst associating with churches who will not accept this pattern?  It was tried 125 years ago and it simply didn’t work – this is why Churches of God exist.   Our history is very different from so-called Exclusives, any separation not being on the grounds of spiritual superiority or purity.

In terms of our separated position, it should be noted that the focus of it is collective.  We welcome and encourage fellowship with other believers on an individual and informal basis, for example in praying together or discussing the Word together.  It is where we are carrying on an activity “as a church” (as Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 11) in times of prayer and worship that these activities are participated in by members of the church.  In all cases, however, all people (whether believers or unbelievers) are free to observe any of our gatherings (with the possible rare exception of when church discipline is being carried out).

Perhaps the above is sufficient to answer the original question posed and responses are welcomed.

No comments:

Post a Comment