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