I begin by stating what is admitted as a general basis of action, that each assembly of Christians, gathered together in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the unity of His body, acts in its own responsibility to the Lord in all corporate action, such as in welcoming in the name of the Lord, those who come amongst them to the Lord’s table; in deciding before the Lord all acts of discipline, and all such like things. Each such assembly acts in itself, and of itself, in carrying out those things which are purely local, but which bear upon the whole Church. The spiritual who addict themselves to this work in detail, before each matter is brought before the gathered saints that the consciences of all may be in the action, may surely look into details with much profit and godly care; but were they to decide anything apart from the assembled saints, even of the commonest kind, their action ceases to be that of the assembly, and should be disowned.
When such local affairs of each meeting are thus carried out by itself and as of itself, under the Lord, all other meetings of the Lord’s people are bound to own the action, as in the unity of the body, taking it for granted (unless it be proved otherwise) that all has been done aright, in the fear of God and in the name of the Lord. Heaven, I am sure, ratifies and owns such godly action, as the Lord said it would (Matt. 18:1818Verily 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. (Matthew 18:18)).
It has often been said, as well as felt, that discipline, in “putting out from among yourselves,” should be the very last thing resorted to; and this when all patience and grace is exhausted, when to allow the evil to remain would be but to dishonor the name of the Lord, and practically to connect it with Him and the profession of His name. Besides all this, discipline in excision is ever and always done with a view to the restoration of the person so dealt with, not with a view to getting rid of him. So it is ever with God in His dealings with ourselves. Personally, He always has the soul’s good and restoration to the fullness of joy and communion in view, and never withholds His hand until this is affected. Godly discipline, done in His fear, has the same end in view; otherwise, it is not of God.
But while each local assembly thus stands in its personal responsibility most truly, and its actions, if of God, are binding upon all others, as in the unity of one body, this fact doss not do away with another feature of the deepest importance, and which many seem to forget. That is, that the voices of brethren from other places have quite as much and as full a freedom as those locally there, to discuss the matters of a gathering of the Lord’s people when amongst them, though these persons have no local connection with the meeting. To refuse this would be a most solemn and practical denial of the unity of the body of Christ. Nay, farther, the conscience and moral state of a local meeting may be ignorant (and the most spiritual are the first to admit that they only “know in part,” and more fully distrust themselves), or it may be dull of apprehension of what is due to Christ and His glory and honor. All this would render its perception so low, that there would be no spiritual power there to discern the good or the evil. Or perhaps prejudice and haste might warp its judgment, or the bias of mind and influence of one or more persons, so that it might conclude falsely, to the deep injury of “a brother.” When this is so, it would be a true blessing that the spiritual and wise from other meetings should come in and seek to set the conscience of the meeting right; to come, too, at the request of the meeting, or the request of those whose case might be uppermost at the time; and their interference, instead of being looked upon as intrusion, should be welcomed and owned in the name of the Lord. To do otherwise would be to set up mere independency, and to deny the unity of the body of Christ.
Still, those who came and acted thus should not act apart from the rest of the meeting, but with the consciences of all. When a meeting has refused all remonstrance, and declined to accept the help and judgment of other brethren there, and when all patience has been exhausted, another meeting, which had been in fellowship with it, may surely undo its wrong action and accept the rejected person, if wrongly dealt with. But when such is resorted to, it has come to be a matter of refusing fellowship with a meeting which has thus acted wrongly, and which has thus itself broken off its communion with the remainder who are acting in the unity of the body. Such should therefore be done carefully and patiently, so that the consciences of all may be carried with the action, as of God.
I note these matters because there might be a tendency of disowning the interference of others in fellowship who come from other places, and of setting up an independency of action in each local gathering. All action, as I have admitted, as to the primary case, devolves at first on the local meeting.
Now as to “business meetings,” as they are termed. There is a danger, when there are several meetings in the same locality in fellowship, of setting up, for convenience, a central business meeting to transact the affairs of all around. It may be said—Brothers come from the other meetings, and we all meet here to interchange the results of our deliberations, that all may know them, so that there may be fellowship in what is done. Well, be it so. If a few brethren who addict themselves to this ministry from each local meeting, choose to assemble in one place, one has nothing to say. But, for what do they assemble? it may be said, to see to the reception of those coming in, and look into cases of discipline, and the like. All well. But suppose a case—which occurs most frequently; that but one brother comes to the appointed place.
Names are mentioned by him of those desiring to take their places at the Lord’s table, or of a case which perhaps has to be dealt with by putting out where he comes from. The meeting, composed of other brethren, discuss the matter, one is quite willing to admit in a most sincere and godly way. They decide to put the person out, or to welcome him in, or refuse to do so, as the case may be. This one brother returns with the decision thus arrived at. Is this the decision of the united conscience of the meeting from which he came? Certainly not. It would be the setting up, as a Metropolitan, with power to decree and decide for other meetings, a business meeting, composed principally of brethren of another meeting, and the conscience of the other meeting not in the action. This would be very grave indeed.
Now, while such a meeting may be of the utmost value when carried out in God’s way, it may also be misused sadly, and therefore I write with the desire that all should be done according to God; a wish in which I am sure I shall be joined by all who love the truth.
If brethren from other meetings come together with those who look after the business of a large local meeting, it is happy, and as it should be. But when they come, they may surely bring the notice of reception, of discipline, or the like, from their own meeting, as a thing locally dealt with there, and interchange this with those with whom they meet; so that a cluster of meetings in the same neighborhood may be aware of what each has already done, as acting in its own locality before the Lord. It would be wrong to shut out the free discussion which may be needful in any case; or to refuse the importance of seeking the counsel of the others. But it is objectionable that the business of other gatherings should be decided, apart from such, by a business meeting, and the gathering which should act for itself thus accepting the actions of another meeting, done by proxy, and endorsing them, instead of acting itself before the Lord. This throws the whole onus of the working of assemblies into the hands of a few, and those not even locally connected with the meeting, and the conscience of the assembly elsewhere, which is thus legislated for, is not in the action at all.
Business meetings of this kind, in the ruined state of the Church of God, are most useful in their way. “The Church of God” is in such a state that not a single body of Christians on earth can claim that name. There has been a great deal made of the want of Elders and an Elderhood, by those whose appointment of them would be about as valid as mine would be. When asked, Where is the Church of God? they cannot tell. I reply, if you find the Church of God for me, I will promise faithfully to find for you God’s Elders! So that all the talk about Elders is but “throwing dust in people’s eyes,” as the saying goes. But this, by the way.
There are still gifts for rule, most surely. There are those who addict themselves to the “ministry of the saints.” It is happy to “submit oneself to such,” as to all who are “joined in the work,” and who “labor;” I trust it may always be so by grace. But they must seek to guide the conscience according to God’s Word. Otherwise it is the blind leading the blind, and both would fall into the ditch. Christianity is characterized by the seeing leading the seeing!