Statement/Question:
Recently a brother stated publicly that he thought that when an individual desired to partake of the Communion here, locally, that it should be mandatory that he first state that “the Lord is ONLY in the midst” with “us” (who feel we follow the Scriptures more obediently, etc., or whatever all the reasons may be) and not in any other fellowships!! There are a great number of us that simply cannot do that! That is for HIM to decide, NOT me!
Answer:
The shortcomings and failures of brethren are no excuse to set aside the truth. If some zealot has stated something that is “over the line,” it cannot be taken as a statement of doctrine that the brethren hold and acknowledge. Whoever made the statement quoted above has clearly gone too far. This would be an example of what we mentioned in the introduction of well-meaning brethren making unbalanced and unguarded statements in their desire to stand for the truth. Such can frustrate the young people, but it in no way sets aside the truth that God has a gathering center to which the Spirit of God is gathering Christians.
The person who made this unguarded statement does not have the support of the prior generations of older brethren. Mr. W. Potter said, “I am not happy in having to think at times the Table of the Lord is made, as it were, a convenience. For instance, those with us have relatives visiting them; they are members of some denomination, but come with their relatives to the meeting, and desire to partake with us of the Supper ‘simply as Christians.’ It has seemed to me that an upright conscience and integrity would take them to their church. They simply come for the occasion because they do not care to break away from the friends for the time being. In this I am not happy.
“It has seemed to me that in such cases our responsibility is not to refuse them, but to put before them why we are thus gathered, that our position is a practical protest against the unscripturalness of denominations, and that they, in partaking with us of the Supper in that act, for the time, identify themselves with us in this position, which is a protest against that with which they are connected and are confessedly upholding. Are they willing, even for the time being, to identify themselves with us? Where souls are exercised, it is another matter, and it seems to me one would feel quite free in sitting at the Table with them.
“Is not exercise of soul the important thing? Hence no one rule can be laid down. It would surely not be of the Lord to require of a godly exercised soul connected with any of the, what we may call, orthodox denominations, that he severs his connection with his church, before we allow him to participate with us at the Table. To do this, it seems to me, is to practically deny the ground upon which we are gathered.
“As to those meetings professedly gathered to the Lord’s name, I believe it to be quite another matter. They are professedly gathered to His name and should know why they are in separation from us and we from them. Should any of them desire to partake of the Table with us, their reasons for this should be inquired into and action taken according to what is found. There is always more intelligence with them, as to divine truth than with those saints in the denominations, and I believe, generally speaking, that they are not as ignorant of the causes of the divisions among us as some of them would sometimes have us think.”
This quote shows that Mr. Potter didn’t believe that we should insist on statements and promises from those wanting to be in fellowship. We don’t make people swear to a creed or have them make a statement of faith, or anything like that; we receive simple souls in faith, trusting that they will grow in their apprehension of the truth.
This principle is seen in 2 Chronicles 30-31. Hezekiah called the people of Judah and those from the departed ten tribes to come to the divine center in Jerusalem and keep the Passover. He did not insist on them destroying their idols before they came. After they did come, and enjoyed the Passover at the divine center, they went home and destroyed their idols and images. (We are not insinuating that the man-made denominations in Christendom are akin with idolatry. We are speaking of the principle of a person disconnecting himself from prior religious error.) The interesting thing to note here is that Hezekiah had not told them to do it! It was a response from their hearts that came purely from their being in the Lord’s presence in Jerusalem.
There is a difference between someone associated with clerical error in the denominations out of ignorance and someone actively upholding and promoting it. A believer, who may be ignorant of God’s Scriptural order for Christian worship and ministry, may come from a man-made denomination that practises a clerical order of things, wanting to break bread at the Lord’s table. Even though he may be associated with that ecclesiastical error, if he is a simple soul, it is not likely that he is at that point, guilty of ecclesiastical evil. And if such a person is known to be godly in walk and sound in doctrine, there should be no hindrance to allowing him to break bread, even though he has not formally severed his association with that denomination. This does not mean that the brethren believe in an open reception to the Lord’s Table. The Lord’s Table is not a closed table, nor is it an open table, but a guarded table. Some who advocate an open reception policy have tried to take things written by early brethren to prove that they taught that the Table should be open. But they, wilfully or ignorantly, have emphasized only certain parts of those writings that suit their agenda. Oftentimes in those same writings there will be statements that qualify those remarks insisting on care being taken in receiving.
The question is, “When does ignorant ecclesiastical association become ecclesiastical evil?” We believe the simple answer is: “When the person’s will is involved.” To ascertain this will require priestly discernment on the part of the assembly. In such cases the assembly needs to be much cast on the Lord to know His mind in the matter. Under normal conditions, the brethren should allow him to break bread, hoping and trusting that God has been working in his heart—and that he will, after being at the Lord’s supper, leave that ground he formerly has been on and continue with those gathered to the Lord’s Name.
Therefore, we do not go around charging Christians in their various church denominations with holding ecclesiastical evil. Such persons may be identified with that false clerical system prevalent in Christendom, but being that they are ignorant, we can hardly hold them guilty. Jude, after speaking of the false clerical order in his epistle, speaks of the need of “making a difference” in regard to “some” in the confusion in Christendom (Jude 11-13, 22-2311Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. 12These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. (Jude 11‑13)
22And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. (Jude 22‑23)). This shows that we must distinguish between the leaders and the led when it comes to ecclesiastical evils.
If a person wants to continue to go to both places regularly, it is probably a sign that his or her will is at work, and it should not be permitted. J. N. Darby remarked, “Difference in ecclesiastical views is not a sufficient reason for shutting out a soul. But if one wanted to be one day among the brethren, the next day among the sects, I should not allow it, and would not receive such a person; for, instead of using the liberty which belongs to him to enjoy the spiritual communion of the children of God, he puts forward the pretension to change the order of the house of God, and to perpetuate the separation of Christians.”
Admittedly, in matters of reception to the Lord’s Table, it would be simpler to have a protocol (a formal procedure that we follow). We could then insist on a person conforming to certain rules and regulations before they are received. But this tends to substitute a system for simple communion with the Lord and our need for priestly discernment in these matters. Due our state we sometimes default to this sort of thing in receiving, rather than having our state tested. At times brethren have fallen back on protocol rather than falling on the Lord’s breast to learn from Him what His mind is when someone comes seeking to be in fellowship. But we are thankful that there is still care being exercised in receiving among brethren generally, though at times we might err on the side of caution.
Sectarianism
An often-heard cry among those who want a wider path is, “The Brethren are so sectarian!” Some of these complaints are the result of hearing statements from zealots such as our commenter/questioner reports—to which we have to humbly “eat the sin-offering.” It is possible to have “a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge,” and this could be detrimental to the testimony, and even stumble some (Rom. 10:22For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. (Romans 10:2); Gal. 4:17-1817They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them. 18But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you. (Galatians 4:17‑18)).
However, it is clear that some who cry “sectarianism,” have never really weighed what they are saying. Sectarianism is zeal for, and an attachment to, a sect. It denotes an excessively zealous narrow-mindedness that quickly judges and condemns all who are not of that sect. Now, do the brethren really do that? Perhaps our readers have heard some person come off with something that is a little “over the line,” but that is not the general collective statement of brethren gathered to the Lord’s name. It may appear that way to those who are defensive of the denominational church position. Such sensitivity may come from their interaction or attendance at some denominational fellowship. And, as a result, when anyone gets anywhere near defending the truth of gathering, they see it as sectarianism. Brethren should zealously insist on principles from the Word of God; it is not wrong to do that. Paul and Barnabas stood firm on things when the truth was being challenged and undermined. It says, “To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour” (Gal. 2:55To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. (Galatians 2:5)).
If we stood back and counted these fiery zealots who have these so-called “sectarian views,” it probably wouldn’t be but a handful of people spread across the country! The world is full of strange and weird personalities. Who are we to tell the Lord that He can’t save and gather a few of them! To take the idiosyncrasies and outlandish statements that some of these people make as being “the creed of the brethren” is a pretty weak argument to put forth to condemn the truth of being gathered to the Lord’s name.
We have noticed, over the years, that many of the same ones who complain about the “sectarianism” among the brethren, and feel that they have to leave that ground “for conscience sake,” we find later they have joined some church denomination! These churches are nothing but sects in the fullest sense of the word. If these people were so concerned about sectarianism, why would they go there? You would think it would be the last place they would go. It doesn’t make sense, and it shows that they couldn’t have had any real exercise about sectarianism. It seems that it is just an excuse to leave the assembly.
Summary:
The shortcomings and failures of brethren are no excuse to set aside the truth. If some zealot has spoken “unadvisedly with his lips” (Psa. 106:3333Because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips. (Psalm 106:33)), it is no reason to throw out the truth of God having a gathering center.