Question:
What should I do if an assembly makes an unrighteous and wrong decision?
Before we try to answer this question, we should be very careful in calling certain assembly decisions that have been made, wrong or evil. It may be that brethren have acted on Scriptural principles in some matter and that we are ignorant of these principles. We imagine that they are wrong, but it’s we who are wrong.
On the other hand, it is possible that things may have been handled wrongly and an erroneous decision may have been made in an assembly. Assuming that this is the premise of the question, we will try to answer it accordingly.
Answer:
If such a thing were to occur—that an assembly made an unrighteous decision—there is recourse.
Firstly, we can take the matter in prayer directly to the Lord; He is the Head of the church. He can exercise the consciences of those in that locality to the end that they will set the action right.
Secondly, the Lord can raise up prophets in the assembly locally or send some from other assemblies to arouse the conscience of that assembly so that the erroneous decision might be rectified (2 Cor. 2:4; Rev. 2:13; 2 Chron. 24:19-22; Judges 9:5-21).
Thirdly, if that local assembly refuses to deal with its wrongs after it has been shown to them conclusively from the Word of God, it may be disowned by the binding action of another assembly acting on behalf of the body at large. They would simply make a formal statement that the assembly in error is no longer on the true ground of the church of God. This responsibility is alluded to in the Lord’s addresses to the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 2-3). He held “the angel” (the responsible leaders) of each assembly accountable for all the wrongs allowed in that local assembly. But each address closes with the words, “What the Spirit saith to the churches” (plural). This shows that although each assembly is responsible to deal with evil in its midst, there is a corporate responsibility on the part of the other assemblies in the matter, if the local assembly does not deal with it. The Lord does not speak, in that passage, as to how this is to be undertaken, but simply that there is a corporate responsibility on the part of the other assemblies.
This principle is enlarged upon in type in Deuteronomy 13. If evil was found in a person in a city in the land, the city wherein he lived was to “stone” him to death (vss. 6-11). Stoning speaks of the conscience of all in a local assembly being engaged in the judgment of a wicked person in its midst. And, if a city is found to have evil in it that it won’t judge, then the other cites in the land were to act for God’s glory by judging that city. It was to be destroyed and made a heap forever (vss. 12-18). This shows that there was a collective responsibility on the part of all the cities in Israel to put away evil in the land. Typically, it speaks of an assembly that is proved to be unrighteous being disowned by the other assemblies in fellowship with it, as being no longer gathered on the true ground of the church.
As mentioned earlier, the removing of a candlestick in a locality is something the Lord does not do quickly. It is only after much remonstrance and space given it for repentance that the Lord will raise up another assembly to disown that assembly in the wrong. Then, of course, the erroneous action that that disowned assembly has bound would no longer stand. In the interim, until an assembly comes in and acts for God’s glory in the matter (in disowning the unrighteous assembly in question), we are to bow to the action and to wait on God. We mention this to show that there is recourse against the abuse of authority in administrative affairs.
Let us note that Scripture never instructs us to take matters into our own hands, as individuals, and act to independently in what seems to be a wrong assembly action; such a thing is not “endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). Independent action of individuals in such collective matters is always decried in the Scriptures (Deut. 17:12; Num. 15:30-31). It only opens the door for the enemy to divide and scatter the flock. There is a divinely appointed way in which such problems are to be dealt with; we must follow it if order is to be maintained.
Unfortunately, this is where many Christians get into error; they think that they can’t submit to something they believe is unrighteous and not according to Scripture. They think that they will be compromising a good conscience. Some will say, “I have to obey the Lord first, not the brethren!” But this is a façade; if the Lord can stand by the decision until it is rectified, why can’t we? An assembly that makes an error in its administrative responsibilities still has the Lord in its midst until it is formally disowned. J. N. Darby said, “Why speak of obeying the Lord first, then the church? But supposing that the Lord is in the church? It is merely setting up private judgment against the judgment of the assembly meeting in Christ’s Name with His promise (if they are not, I have nothing to say to them); it is simply saying, ‘I count myself wiser than those who are.’ I reject entirely as unscriptural the saying, ‘First Christ, then the Church.’” On this same subject he also said, “The question, therefore, is a mere and poor sophistry which betrays the desire to have the will free, and a confidence that the person’s judgment is superior to all that has been already judged.”
It is important to understand that the assembly has been vouchsafed with the Lord’s authority to act in His Name in the time of His absence, and its acts are to be submitted to as the final authority. In Matthew 18:18-20, in dealing with a certain matter, the Lord said, “Tell it to the assembly.” Then, He went on to speak of its authority to act in His name, saying, “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” An example of the assembly binding is found in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; an example of the assembly loosing is found in 2 Corinthians 2:6-11.
However, because the assembly has been given authority to act for God’s glory does not mean that its acts are infallible. J. N. Darby has written a helpful article on this subject entitled, “Confounding Authority with Infallibility.” He shows that it’s possible that an assembly may bind something that is in error, and it is bound in heaven—at least until the action can be rectified. Many people have been confused on this point. They can’t understand how an action that is wrong could be “bound in heaven.” However, “bound in heaven” does not necessarily mean that it is approved by heaven. It simply means that heaven recognizes it. Heaven may not be happy with a decision the assembly makes—yet it stands by it. The assembly has been vested with the Lord’s authority to act for Him representatively in His absence; it is an extension of His authority on earth. And, it is possible for the assembly to use His authority wrongly—nevertheless, it’s still His authority.
We can well understand this principle within a household. In Mr. Darby’s article on “Confounding Authority with Infallibility” he makes mention of the fact that parents have a divinely given authority in their household, yet they are not infallible. Acquiescence is the duty of all in the household. A father might discipline a child mistakenly, but it still stands, and the duty of all in the household is to acquiesce. This is the way order in the household is maintained. When it comes to light that he has made a mistake, under normal conditions, he will correct his mistake with humble apologies and make the necessary amends. Also, in the case of a police magistrate: he has authority to arrest someone, but since he is not infallible, it is possible that he could make a mistake. Nevertheless, his action still stands, and the individual has no choice but to accept it until it is shown to be wrong. If the civil authorities were not run that way, there would be no order in government at all. Mr. Darby also said, “In a hundred instances obedience may be obligatory where there is no infallibility. Were it not so, as you can easily see, there could be no order in the world at all. ... If there be no obedience where there is not infallibility, no acquiescence in what has been decided, there is no end to self-will and no existence of common order.” Similarly, in assembly decisions, heaven may not be pleased with something that the assembly binds in error, yet heaven stands by it for the time being. In this way, order is maintained in the house of God.
It should solemnize us greatly when we think that we could use the Lord’s authority and mistakenly identify heaven with something that is not right; and thus, incur the Lord’s governmental judgment. This is the very reason the Lord has outwardly dissociated Himself from the mass of the Christian profession and has taken up with a remnant testimony. And if those identified with that remnant testimony should carry on in a poor state and fail in their responsibility, He will bring His hand on them in governmental judgment, and reduce their numbers by sifting and scattering some, that they may be humbled. Sad to say, this has happened.
Mr. W. Potter has written a short paper on assembly actions of binding and loosing, wherein he says that the “whatsoever” in Matthew 18:19 is an unconditional whatsoever. The assembly may enact a binding decision on, or against, whatever it feels is necessary for the Lord’s glory. Some imagine that this is akin to Popery and is giving the assembly undisputed authority. Such will argue that if “whatsoever” is unconditional, then the assembly could bind anything that it wanted to, and it would be automatically bound in heaven. In their minds it would be making heaven subject to the actions of the church on earth; and should the assembly make a mistake, then heaven would be in fellowship with the wrong. This assumption, however, is not true; we have already shown that the Lord is still in the midst of an erring assembly that has evil in it, until it is rectified or formally disowned.
Many have been sadly misled through the mistaken idea that unless an assembly action bears the hallmark of God’s Word, it is not ratified in heaven and binds no one on earth. In other words, the decision is only a binding action when it is a right decision. What they are really saying—though they may not realize it—is that all of the assembly’s true decisions are infallible. When the assembly acts administratively in making a binding decision, it is never wrong! The very ones who accuse the brethren of Popery are really those who hold to the principle of infallibility! Mr. Darby’s article shows that this mistaken idea is confounding authority with infallibility.
On the surface of this argument, it seems logical not to submit to an unrighteous decision, but behind this idea is the enemy’s attempt to bring confusion into the assembly, and to undermine its authority and its actions. All anyone has to do is declare that an action of the assembly is an unrighteous action, and conclude that heaven, therefore, has not bound it. And if heaven hasn’t accepted it, then they should reject it too. It is a convenient way to set aside assembly actions that we don’t like. If the assembly’s administrative acts were only to be submitted to under the condition that they are righteous acts, then all order would soon be lost. This erroneous idea makes assembly judgments subject to our private judgment. Then, the assembly is no longer the highest court of authority in these matters—our personal judgment is! The result is that everyone is left to do “that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). However, Mr. Darby said, “A judgment of an assembly, even if I thought it a mistake, I should in the first instance accept and act upon it.”
In an effort to negate the force of the “whatsoever” in Matthew 18:18, some have mistakenly assumed that verse 19 is a prayer meeting. Thus, they reason that if the assembly’s prayers are subject to heaven’s qualifying (for God only answers our prayers when they are according to His will), then the “whatsoever” they bind must also be subject to heaven’s qualifying. This is clever, but it is taking verse 19 right out of its context. The verse is not referring to a prayer meeting, but to those gathered to the Lord’s name, assembled as such to act in their administrative responsibilities when enacting a binding decision. It is a meeting for discipline. Paul speaks of this same kind of meeting in 1 Corinthians 5:4-5. If the Lord had been referring to the prayer meeting in Matthew 18:19, then He changed His subject right in the middle of His dissertation on the assembly’s administrative actions. Then afterwards, He switched back to the subject having to do with the Lord being in the midst and of the saints having a forgiving spirit toward a repentant brother who has sinned (vss. 20-35). This is senseless. The point of verses 19-20 is that the assembly comes together with the Lord in the midst to invoke God to ratify their binding decision. The promise is sure; “It shall be done for them of My Father which is in heaven.” (Verse 20 may be read in the breaking of bread, but it is only to establish the fact that the Lord is in the midst of His saints when they are gathered together in assembly.)
For those who question whether “whatsoever” is anything that the assembly might pass judgment on, we would point them to 2 Corinthians 2:10. We find there, that when it comes to loosing a binding action, Paul says, “To whom ye forgive any thing ... ” If they are seen forgiving “any thing” they must necessarily have bound “any thing.” This should not be difficult to understand if someone has a willing mind—but that’s the great question. Do we really want the Lord’s mind? People sometimes make such a fuss about the assembly perhaps making a wrong decision, that you wonder what they are driving at. But really, how often has that happened? Rarely. Mr. Potter said that in the 50 years that he had been among brethren he had not known of an action that had been made that couldn’t be submitted to.
To some, the answer is to have another assembly step in and revise the original assembly’s decision. Mr. C. D. Maynard said, “An assembly, when gathered to the Name of Christ, has Him in its midst, and has His authority for acting in binding or loosing the sins of an offending brother (Matt. 18:18-20). Such an act is ratified in heaven. From this decision there is no appeal, save to Christ in glory; as Jesus ‘committed [His cause] to Him that judgeth righteously’ (1 Peter 2:23). ...It might occur to some that if a local assembly judged, as they thought, wrongly, an appeal might be made to another local assembly. For example, to restore a person wrongly put out. This has no more Scripture for it than any Romish corruption. On the face of it, it denies the practical oneness of the two meetings. To entertain the question refuses that there is one body and one Spirit. If the Lord’s table be one, both meetings are bound when one acts, so that appeal is impossible. If they can revise one another’s judgments, the unity of the Spirit does not exist there, they are but independent meetings.” The misunderstanding of this important principle in assembly matters is behind many of the sad divisions that have occurred among those gathered to the Lord’s Name down through the years. We do well, therefore, to ponder these things carefully.
Another erroneous idea that some have is that if the assembly makes a wrong decision, then it forfeits the ground that it is on as gathered to the Lord’s name and is no longer on divine ground. This is not right either. Again, it betrays the ignorance of confounding authority with infallibility. The fact that an assembly has authority, but is not infallible, is to acknowledge the possibility that it could make a mistake. In making a mistake, the assembly does not lose its status as being a Scripturally gathered assembly, any more than parents in a household cease to be parents because they make a mistake in disciplining their child.
An example of this misunderstanding is in what happened at Tunbridge Wells in 1908-9. Many thought that the actions the assembly took, first in silencing (1903), and then later putting away Mr. C. Strange (1908), were unrighteous. Believing that the dealings of Tunbridge Wells were unjust and unscriptural, they thought that the assembly had thereby lost its status as an assembly truly gathered to the Lord’s name. Consequently, many would not bow to their assembly decisions. Mr. W. R. Dronsfield propounds this mistaken idea in his book, “The Brethren Since 1870,” (p. 33), saying, “If two or three are truly gathered unto the Lord’s Name, any decision they come to must be right for heaven to acknowledge it as such. The converse of this, however, is also true, which is that if those gathered together come to an unjust and unrighteous decision, they cannot be gathered unto the Lord’s Name.” This mistaken idea led to a sorrowful division among brethren.
Summary:
If we think that the assembly has made an error in a binding decision:
First, we need to be sure that we understand the principles involved. It could be that we are uninformed and ignorant of certain Scriptural principles. If indeed it is a wrong decision, we should bring it to the Lord, the Head of the church, in prayer.
Then, we should express our convictions—based on Scripture—to the brethren and then wait for them to be exercised about it.
Then, we are to wait on the Lord to intervene and to set it right. Let us rest assured that He will come in, in His own time and in His own way; faith will wait on Him. If it is a serious error, it may be that the Lord will lead another assembly to formally disown that assembly as being on divine ground.
In the meantime, we are not to take things into our own hands and to begin to campaign among the brethren to overturn the decision. It is possible to stand for a right thing in a wrong way—and this only brings in confusion. Oftentimes, those who act in the flesh in assembly matters get slain—even if they are fighting for what is right! This was the danger that Peter got into in drawing his sword. The Lord said to him, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matt. 26:52).