In turning to Scripture, let us keep clearly before our minds the question at issue. Does association with a teacher known to teach false doctrine defile, or must the false doctrine first be imbibed before defilement is contracted? In 2 John 1011 we read, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds.” This passage clearly contemplates two persons, one holding false doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the other a person who wishes him Godspeed. The passage does not say, or imply, that this second person holds the false doctrine but that he identifies himself, by an act of fellowship, with the man that does, and, so doing, God calls this person a “partaker of his evil deeds.” If then God calls this man a partaker of evil deeds, he is surely a defiled man, and that, not because he has imbibed the evil doctrine, but because he is knowingly associated with a man that holds the false doctrine.
In the light of this scripture how solemn is the statement, made by Mr. Muller, that the Open Brethren receive those “who come from persons preaching damnable heresies” providing they are found to be personally sound in foundation truths. Whether fully realized or not, this means, as a matter of fact, that the Open Brethren received persons that God calls “partaker[s] of . . . evil deeds.”
Again we find this principle of the Open Brethren contradicted by 1 Corinthians 5:6, in the case of defilement by association with an evildoer. In this passage the Corinthian assembly is warned that “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Does this mean that the Corinthian saints, having remained in association with a man known to be incestuous, had therefore all become incestuous? This indeed would be truly absurd. The clear meaning is surely that having remained in association with an incestuous man, they had thereby become defiled. In like manner, as we have seen, association with one holding evil doctrine caused defilement. It was not necessary for the Corinthians to commit incest to contract defilement, nor for evil doctrine to be imbibed in order to be defiled. See also Galatians 5:79. In both cases it was the deliberate association with known evil that defiled.
Again, the Apostle writing to the Corinthians, in his second epistle, after they had dealt with the incestuous person, can say, “Ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter” (2 Cor. 7:11). Obviously, then, until they had dealt with the matter, they were not clear. But again we ask, Does this mean that they had all been guilty of incest? Surely not, but rather that they were all defiled, and having dealt with the man they were clear of defilement as far as his case was concerned.
These questions may well suffice to establish the principle that association with known evil defiles. But the principle is of such importance that we may be permitted to “ask now the priests concerning the law.” What will they tell us? The Lord instructs us how to put our question to the priests: “If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean” (Hag. 2:11-1311Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying, 12If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. 13Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. (Haggai 2:11‑13)).
Here we have two questions. First, will that which is holy sanctify that with which it comes in contact? And the priests answer, “No.” Then we have a second question: Will that which is unholy defile that with which it comes in contact? And the priests tell us it will defile it. This second question is the one that immediately concerns us. One is unclean by a dead body, and whatever he touches becomes unclean. It is not first necessary for the thing touched to come into contact with the dead body in order to be defiled, for as soon as it comes into contact with the man who has touched the dead body, it is defiled.
Is it possible for a simple soul, unprejudiced by the theories of men, to arrive at any other conclusion than that these scriptures plainly teach that association with a teacher known to teach false doctrine defiles, even though the doctrine itself has not been imbibed?
Alas! The force of these plain scriptures has apparently been ignored in the Open Brethren system, as a method of reception has been adopted which opens the door to defilement by receiving persons without reference to their associations.
In actual practice their system of independent meetings probably leads to very different methods of reception in different meetings. More godly care is exercised in some than in others. Doubtless in some meetings letters of commendation would be strictly required. In others strangers are invited to break bread. The extreme limit of the “Open” reception is seen in some meetings where all Christians present are invited to break bread. In such cases all godly care and Scriptural order are abandoned. In our private homes none would dream of inviting people of whom we know nothing to sit down at our tables. In a house of public resort no inquiry is needed, or made, as to the person who sits next to us at the table. We are there simply as individuals and strangers to one another. How different when, in the presence of the Lord of glory, we sit down at His table under conditions suitable to and enjoined by Himself to remember Him. In meetings where all present who profess to be Christians are invited to break bread, is not the table of the Lord reduced, in this respect, to the level of the table of a house of public resort? In the face of these things we may well ask, Have not the Open Brethren exposed themselves to the charge of having sunk, in this matter, below the level of every orthodox sect in Christendom? Do not all other sects erect some barrier, however slight, around that which they reverently, even if erroneously, consider the table of the Lord?
Before leaving the matter of reception, it may be well to refer to Romans 15:77Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God. (Romans 15:7), “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God.” It will be noticed that in the extract given from Mr. Muller’s letter (page 8) he gives a reference to this passage as if it supports his views. Many others have attempted to use this scripture in a similar way. Is not this, however, a thoughtless perversion of Scripture to support particular views? Of this passage another has truly written, “I am convinced that the quotation of this passage (Rom. 15:77Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God. (Romans 15:7)) as a warrant for promiscuous assembly reception is totally irrelevant. The Epistle to the Romans is not dealing with assembly order at all. It is a question of individual blessing through the gospel and of whom we are to recognize in our individual walk as Christians (see verse 1). Even the one whose faith is weak and who may practically put himself into bondage (ch. 14) is not to be ostracized. Moreover, how did Christ receive us? To the glory of God is the answer. It is no warrant for indiscriminate reception in any sense, but that in receiving we are exhorted to do so in view of all that suits the glory of God.”