Why Do We Meet As We Do?
Nicolas Simon
Table of Contents
Why Do We Meet As We Do?
The Early Brethren
When John Darby, Edward Cronin, John Bellett, and Francis Hutchinson met together at No. 9 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin, for the breaking of bread, they were not trying to create anything. Not a new movement, not a new church! They were not seeking to form a fellowship of believers to show the oneness of the body. They merely desired to walk in obedience to the Word of God. They simply met together on Scriptural grounds, giving expression to the One Body — of which Christ is the Head in glory and the Holy Spirit the active agent amongst the saints of God here on this earth. The four that came together in that winter of 1827 — gathered unto the Lord’s name alone — they never claimed to be better than others; nor did they suggest that the activity of the Holy Spirit was limited to them. Such a stand would have been abhorrent to them.
Every revival involves a rediscovery of the truth as found in the Word of God — the truth is always there, but through disobedience its force is lost upon us. “Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes” (2 Kings 22:10-11). It was no different in 1827. They recognized the importance and blessedness of what God had revealed in His Word respecting His Church, the Body of Christ. It may come as a surprise to us, but to speak of the Church as the Body of Christ, of which He is the glorified Head in heaven, and of its being indwelt and governed by the Holy Spirit, were unfamiliar truths in the ears of Christendom (A. Miller).
The Bible is the most contemporary book available — its contents are never old-fashioned. We are the ones who want change. It is the nature of man to be constantly seeking some new thing (Acts 17:21). The truths recovered in the 1800s are as valid today as they were then. We often forget how widely they were accepted (at least in a general way) within evangelical Christendom and the incredible influence they had. Sadly, these truths were soon — figuratively speaking — ground in mills, beat upon, and baked in pans, because men quickly tired of its taste and desired some new thing (Num. 11:8).
The Body of Christ
In the Book of Acts (the only biblical account we have of the early church), Christ in Glory and the activity of the Holy Spirit are central themes. As with other historical books of the Bible, Acts presents doctrinal truths in practice, for us to read and learn from. No passage more vividly brings out this point than Paul’s conversion: “And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven. And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? And he said, Who art Thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” (Acts 9:3-5). Did Saul ever persecute the Lord? No! Nevertheless, in persecuting the church, the Lord says that he was persecuting Himself. It is not now the despised Jesus that the world knew and crucified, but Jesus glorified and on high, revealed in a dazzling display of light above the brightness of the midday sun (Acts 26:13). Paul never forgot that glory, nor did he ever forget the oneness of the saints with Jesus as their Head in heaven. Indeed, these two revelations characterize his ministry.
The Holy Spirit was promised while the Lord was still with His disciples; however, the coming of the Holy Spirit was contingent upon the Lord’s going away. “I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you” (John 16:7). On the day of Pentecost the saints of God were baptized into one body by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4; 1 Cor. 12:12-13). On that day, the Church was formed; and from that day forward, every true believer has become a part of that One Body through the Holy Spirit. Collectively, all the saints of God form the Body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:12). When man creates organizations, he adopts constitutions, hierarchy, powerful leaders, councils, and every other contrivance to enforce unity. God, however, in His wisdom, has chosen something more wonderful than any of these. He chose to send the Holy Spirit to indwell each true saint of God, to teach and guide, and to connect them with Christ in Glory.
The Body of Christ is heavenly in character. The Church’s hopes are heavenly. The return of the Lord Jesus Christ for His own is its blessed hope (Titus 2:13). God “has raised us up together, and has made us sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6). God sees us in Christ seated together in the heavenlies. Sadly, we no longer see Christians longing for that place in an upper chamber — as near to heaven, we might say, as we can be on this earth. Instead, Christendom is fallen down in a stupor; she lies in a coma in the midst of the bright streets of this world and all of its empty glory (Acts 20:7-12).
The House of God.
The House of God is the habitation of God in this scene; as such, it is connected with man and his responsibility.
As soon as we have a people redeemed in the Old Testament, we have the thought of God’s dwelling in the midst of His people. In Exodus chapter 15, we have the Song of Redemption. The children of Israel are on the other side of the Red Sea and Pharaoh and his chariots are in the middle of it. “The LORD is my strength and song, and He is become my salvation: He is my God, and I will prepare Him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him” (Ex. 15:2). God could not dwell with them in Egypt, a land of idolatry; He must separate Israel from such a scene for Himself. We have a fulfillment in the Tabernacle: “and let them make Me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them” (Ex. 25:8). However, such a building must be built according to God’s specification: “and look that thou make them after their pattern, which was showed thee in the mount” (Ex. 25:40). We see it again with Solomon’s temple: “The priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of the LORD” (1 Kings 8:11). When Israel joined with the idolatry of the nations, the glory of the Lord departed from the temple. We read of this reluctant leaving in Ezekiel (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4, 18-19; 11:22-23). The declension was so great that the Lord could no longer own Israel as His people (Hos. 1:9). With Ezra’s temple, there was no ark of the covenant and no token of the Lord’s presence in the House. Nevertheless, Israel was still held responsible for their behavior in that which was still identified as the House of God (Hag. 2:9; John 2:16). The glory of Jehovah will again fill the House of God — Ezekiel’s Temple — during the Millennium (Ezek. 44:4; Hag. 2:7).
Next we see God amongst men in the Person of the Lord Jesus — though His glory was hidden: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Matt. 1:23). God still dwells on earth today; only now, it is not Jesus that is upon the earth, but collectively He dwells in His people, who by the Holy Spirit are His temple. “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Cor. 3:16). “In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit” (Eph. 2:22). “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).
In Ephesians, God is the builder; it is a building fitly framed together (Eph. 2:21). The apostles and prophets are the foundation, Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone. Scripture, however, gives us another view of the Church, this time with respect to man’s responsibility. “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:10-11). Paul was the wise master builder; he laid the foundation upon which others have built (1 Cor. 3:10). Every man’s work will be exposed. It is possible for a man’s work to be burned, and yet he himself is saved. It is also possible for one taking the place of a teacher or minister to be lost, and for his work to be lost also. The Church has not remained true to her foundation, but rather, she has utterly failed in her responsibility. Most solemnly, where there is responsibility there must also be judgment. “Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is” (1 Cor. 3:13). “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the House of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17). “Holiness becometh thine House, O LORD, forever” (Psa. 93:5). It is amazing how men will attempt to patch up that which is contrary to the Word of God, rather than judge it at its root. One denomination in particular, adopted many truths concerning the Church and its hopes, but it has never abandoned the position upon which it was built.
There is a behavior suited to the House of God. “These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:14-15). The assembly is the pillar, a support for the truth. She does not do this through teaching, for teaching is the domain of the servant of God. Rather, the Church is to be a testimony to the truth; that is, she should uphold and display truth on earth. When the Church is removed, apostate Christendom will believe a lie (2 Thess. 2:11-12). If a single word is to characterize Paul’s first letter to Timothy, it is “godliness” (1 Tim. 2:2; 3:16; 4:7-8; 6:3, 5-6, 11). Godliness — that which is honoring to God — should characterize our behavior in the House of God.
In Second Timothy, Christendom is likened to a great house: “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour” (2 Tim. 2:20). How is one to behave in such a house? “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are His. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (2 Tim. 2:19). “If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work. Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Tim. 2:21-22). The emphasis here is not the material, but rather, are we a sanctified vessel?
Separation from all that is contrary to the Word of God, and from those that refuse to separate from such things, is fiercely resisted today. Objections are raised on the grounds of the oneness of the body, grace, love, etc. However, God never asks us to sacrifice righteousness or purity in the name of peace (see 2 Tim. 2:22; James 3:17). Indeed, there will never be peace without righteousness: “the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance forever” (Isa. 32:17). All such objections confuse the Body of Christ with the House of God where man has a responsibility to walk in truth (3 John 4). It is remarkable that the only time “godliness” appears in Paul’s second letter to Timothy is in the verse: “this know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. ... having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:1, 6). Godliness, we are told, will become nothing but an outward form with no power whatsoever to shape lives, and, as a consequence, the collective testimony of the assembly. This is Laodiceanism (Rev. 3:14-22).
The Local Assembly
The Greek word for church (ekklesia) was used in ancient Greece to describe an assembly of citizens representative of the whole (Acts 19:39). To the Corinthians, Paul could write: “ye are Christ’s body, and members in particular” (1 Cor. 12:27 JND). It could not be said that they were the entire Body of Christ, for that must take in all believers everywhere; nevertheless, the assembly in Corinth was recognized as the local expression of that body. Consequently, they should have been acting in a manner consistent with this. Instead, there were divisions, self-aggrandizement, envy, and every other form of factious behavior (1 Cor. 1:10-13, etc.).
Scripture calls upon us to keep the unity of the Spirit. We do not keep the unity of the Body — the Body is one. In keeping the unity of the Spirit, we give expression to the unity of the Body (which is formed through the Holy Spirit), without being required to extend fellowship to those from whom we must separate. Keeping the unity of the Spirit, however, does not just refer to the internal unity of an assembly, but also to the relationship between assemblies. In chapter 5 of First Corinthians, Paul compels the assembly in Corinth to act in a matter of discipline; it was necessary to put away the wicked person from among them (1 Cor. 5:13). To suggest that the individual in question, having been put away, could wander over to Ephesus and associate with the assembly there would contradict the very thought that there is a “within” and a “without” (1 Cor. 5:12). It would also be a practical denial by the Ephesian assembly (if they should receive such a one) of the exhortation, “to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). For Ephesus to re-judge the matter already dealt with in Corinth, and come to an independent conclusion would also be a denial of the unity of the Spirit. Scripture decries independency of judgment (Deut. 12:8; 17:8-13). It would also be a rejection of the authority of the assembly in Corinth. The person excommunicated in Corinth is put out of fellowship — he can no longer associate with the believers at Corinth or elsewhere. He is most certainly not put out of the Body of Christ, nor, for that matter, is he put out of the House of God — though such discipline is connected with the order in the House of God.
The assembly derives its authority from the presence of the Lord in the midst. “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ... For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20). Being gathered to the Lord’s name is no idle claim. I cannot meet with other Christians and simply assert that the Lord is in the midst — on what ground could I say this? I am assuming the Lord has placed His sanction on that which I have created.
If the Lord’s presence, as spoken of in Matthew 18:20, is simply God’s dwelling in the Church through the Spirit (as in 1 Cor. 3) or in a person individually (as in 1 Cor. 6), then it would have to mean that any group of believers coming together (on a street corner for that matter) has the authority to act in matters of discipline. And yet, in Christendom (where this is the widely accepted view) we see the very opposite being carried out in practice. Every group claims for itself the right to judge any decision made by any other group. That it is to say, each group acts independently; there is no acknowledging of the Lord in the midst in any other place (despite the loud protests to the contrary). Although many claim the Lord’s presence, it apparently has no practical bearing whatsoever.
The word “gathered” implies some outside influence bringing together. Furthermore, the word, as used in Matthew 18:20, is in the passive; it is where “two or three are gathered together in My name.” What is that influence? Who is the agent in this case? Is it a common belief? Is it a common objective? Though this is the case for the gatherings of men, none other than the Spirit of God can gather us to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. We have a very vivid picture of this in Mark 14 and Luke 22 with the Man bearing the picture of water. There is no point arguing that the Spirit of God is not mentioned in Matthew 18 — to say that the Holy Spirit must be explicitly named before we can recognize the activity of the Spirit is blind unbelief.
The book of Acts is very much a book of the acts of the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost, as the expression is frequently translated). With the formation of the Church on the day of Pentecost, through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, we see the activity of the Church and the saints directed by the Holy Spirit. “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them” (Acts 13:2). Two things are much emphasized in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (where we especially have the internal ordering of the assembly established), the Lordship of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. “Which also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, communicating spiritual things by spiritual means” (1 Cor. 2:13 JND).
Christendom wants a loose coalition of independent fellowships; Scripture knows no such thing. If factions within the assembly at Corinth were soundly condemned by Paul, how would open divisions — accepted as perfectly valid today (even boasted of — it’s diversity we are told!) — be addressed by the Apostle today? The modern solution in Christendom is to write back to Paul and say, “Oh, it’s OK now — we’ve addressed the problem; we’ve decided to recognize each schism as no better than the other. People are free to move between them!” Rather than judging the error, this gives sanction to it.
The Lord’s Table
In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul speaks of the Lord’s Table as the expression of fellowship. The cup of blessing is the fellowship of the blood of Christ, and the bread which we break is the fellowship of the body of Christ (vs. 16). Furthermore, in the unbroken loaf we see represented the One Body: “we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf” (vs. 17 JND). A table, in Scripture, speaks of fellowship; the Lord’s Table symbolizes the ground of fellowship that God has for all Christians — it is based solely on there being One Body. No one outside of the family of God has any place there, whereas every child of God has a place there — though they can refuse that place, or, because of defilement, they may have to be put away from it. It is the Lord’s Table; His authority is recognized and bowed to. Man cannot establish a fellowship and claim to be at the Lord’s Table. There is only one fellowship recognized in Scripture: “God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9). We don’t create it; we can’t even join it. We are called into it.
The outward symbol and instrument of unity is, therefore, the partaking of the Lord’s Supper at the Lord’s Table. It may come as a surprise to some, but unity is not expressed by the number of believers gathered. Indeed, in 1827, there were just four individuals gathered unto the name of the Lord to show forth His death! Perhaps you protest: “What about the many other Christians in Ireland at that time?” Yes, and they were gathered on every other principle except the ground of the One Body. There were Anglicans (for whom the King was Supreme Governor of the church), and there were also various dissenting bodies gathered in opposition to the establishment. There was, however, no sense of giving expression to the true Church of God with liberty given to the Holy Spirit to operate in the assembly. Even if there were only four gathered in accordance with the principles found in the Word of God today, they could still give expression to the true nature and character of the Church. Though obviously, many members of the Body of Christ were not present, yet, in the loaf every blood-bought saint was represented (1 Cor. 10:16-17).
There is only one “church membership” recognized by Scripture, and that is membership in the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12). Every other membership is contrary to the Word of God. To say that I’m a member of the Lutheran Church conveys nothing except to say that I am a member of some organization identified with Martin Luther. If I go to Ephesus, I am not received because I am a member of the “Corinthian Church”, but rather, because I am a member of the Body of Christ. Lest this should be misinterpreted, allow me to clarify. It would be Godly order for a letter to be sent from those in Corinth commending me to the assembly in Ephesus (Rom. 16:1-2; Philemon). “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Cor. 13:1). In addition to providing a commendation as to my salvation and good standing at Corinth, such a letter would also identify the “altar” with which I am associated (more will be said on this later). The letter does not establish any membership outside of the Body of Christ. The assembly at Corinth has authority to write such a letter on the same basis as it has authority in other assembly matters — it is gathered unto the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 18:20; 1 Cor. 5:4-5).
A question — perhaps naturally enough — is then raised: “Why don’t we have an open reception policy, receiving anyone simply on the confession of their faith as a member of the Body of Christ?” Firstly, it is not a question of us having this policy or that, but rather, it should be our desire to do what is in keeping with the Word of God. It is the Lord’s Table and the Lord’s Supper, not our own. His Lordship must be owned and honored. “Holiness becometh Thine house, O LORD, forever” (Psa. 93:5). This is just as true today as it was for Israel of old.
In partaking at the Lord’s Table, we are identified with it — that is the meaning of the word fellowship. This is true of any table. Paul goes on in that 10th chapter to stress the importance of this. When an Israelite ate his portion of the peace offering, he expressed fellowship with the altar that God had instituted under the Jewish economy (vs. 18). When a pagan sacrificed to an idol, he expressed fellowship with that which the idol stood for — God tells us it was a demon (vs. 20). Eating an offering made to an idol identified one with that demon. Knowingly sharing in that food was sufficient identification to provoke the Lord to jealousy. “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils” (1 Cor. 10:21).
Christians struggle with this principle. They want to remember the Lord anywhere without having to bother with doctrines or associations. God, however, is wiser than man. Some will object and say that the two examples used by Paul refer to non-Christian altars — the one to Judaism and the other to paganism. In Paul’s day, Christianity was not openly divided; the local assembly consisted of the Christians in that locality; there were no examples of other Christian “fellowships.” Clearly, all Christians that have any desire to please the Lord draw the line somewhere; to partake of a Catholic mass, where Christ is said to be sacrificed again (though without bloodshed), goes beyond the comfort level of many. This is not, however, about drawing arbitrary lines based on our comfort level. A table established on any ground other than that of the One Body — whether it be a union of sects, or common agreement, or dissent, or any principle other than those already outlined — is simply a table of man, and anyone participating at it identifies with the doctrines and principles held by those so gathered.
In Hebrews 13 we have reference to an altar. In Christianity, there is no physical altar; nevertheless, God refers to a spiritual altar where spiritual sacrifices are offered and where those serving other altars have no right to eat (Heb. 13:9-16). The chapter specifically refers to those that serve the tabernacle — interestingly, there was no tabernacle in that day! The writer of Hebrews expected the reader to understand the spiritual significance of the expression. In Judaism, when communion between God and the people had been broken, the whole congregation bore the guilt and the sin offering had to be burned without the camp — the camp was seen as defiled (Lev. 4:1-21). Much that characterized Judaism (and paganism) has been brought into Christendom. There is much defilement within Christendom, and we are called to separate from it. “Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb. 13:13). Throughout the Levitical law, we repeatedly see that one is defiled through association with that which is unclean. When a man died in a tent, all that came into the tent were defiled (Num. 19:14). Certainly, under grace we are not subject to such ordinances, but the principles remain. God’s standard of holiness was not weakened by grace; rather, it was strengthened. “Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:16). Why, you ask? Not because we are under law, but because we have been redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:18).
By way of summary, the Lord’s Table speaks of fellowship. Eating and drinking at a table identifies us with that table — the people there and the doctrines associated with it. The Lord is jealous for His table; we cannot bring our associations with those things contrary to His Word and His holy nature to His table. Immorality is not the only thing contrary to the Word of God (1 Cor. 5); there are also doctrinal errors (Gal. 5:9; Rev. 2:15) and ecclesiastical evil (3 John 9-11; Jude 11).
The Lord’s Supper
In chapter 11 of First Corinthians, the Apostle addresses the disorder that characterized the remembrance of the Lord at Corinth (vss. 17-34). The Corinthians could not be commended for their treatment of the Lord’s Supper. There were divisions within which had led to the formation of open sects (schools of thought). This is often the case; discontent finds itself a leader, and before long, there is a loyal following. Of all the problems at Corinth, division and heretical leaders is the first one addressed by Paul in his letter; this is most significant.
The Corinthian saints had completely missed the mind of the Lord as regards the Lord’s Supper. They were not partaking in the Lord’s Supper at all, though they might have supposed so (vs. 20). It would appear that early Christians had a tradition of coming together for happy fellowship in what Jude calls love-feasts, but Scripture does not call these meals the Lord’s Supper (Jude 12 JND). The behavior of the Corinthians suited neither occasion — they brought their own food, which they selfishly kept from the less fortunate, and some got drunk!
Paul then recounts to them, again, what he had received from the Lord — it was by revelation that he had received it. On the night in which He was betrayed, the Lord Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. The bread symbolizes to us His body given in death for us; the cup is representative of His shed blood — the basis of the New Covenant. When we eat of the bread and drink of the wine, we do it in remembrance of Him. It is not to remember Him (as if we had forgotten), but it is to His remembrance. Furthermore, each time we partake of the Lord’s Supper, we show forth the Lord’s death — and it is until He comes; when He comes, there will no longer be any need for this memorial. The remembrance of the Lord is collective. It is not “I’m remembering the Lord and it doesn’t matter what other members of the congregation do,” but rather, collectively, “ye do show the Lord’s death till He come” (vs. 26). “Ye show” is plural.
One who partakes of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner is guilty as to the body and blood of the Lord; in so doing, we bring the sentence of judgment upon ourselves (vss. 27-29). When we fail to discern the Lord’s body, we slight His unfathomable love and grace. If we judge ourselves, then we are not judged. Failing that, the Lord disciplines us so that we may not be condemned with the world (vss. 31-32). If my son sits at the dinner table with filthy hands from having worked on his car, it must be addressed; he should wash before he comes. If he says that he will sit there but not eat, it is still a problem. The exhortation is: “let a man examine himself, and so let him eat” (vs. 28).
To suggest that the self-judgment spoken of here in some way negates the assembly’s responsibility to act in matters of discipline, as spoken of in chapter 5, is to miss the point entirely. There we have one who brought defilement into the assembly, and as a result, the whole was leavened (1 Cor. 5:6). That individual had to be put away as we have already spoken of. “Fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints” (Eph. 5:2). When Achan sinned, God says: “Israel hath sinned” (Josh. 7:11). “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:6).
Where Do We Go From Here?
When the knowledge of the principle of a thing is lost, people will substitute something else to justify the position they hold. If it is not understood why it matters how we are gathered as we are, or why the assembly acts as it does, then any distinction between those gathered to the Lord’s name and the various groups in Christendom will be quickly lost — I might as well go and join the “church” of my choice. This, no doubt, is a cause of great weakness amongst us, though it is nothing new. Paul found himself very much alone at the end of his life, and we know historically how quickly things degenerated in Christendom. “Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent” (Rev. 2:5). I do not suggest this as an excuse for our present state; but rather, it should energize us to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).
To claim to be identified with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart, or to say that I accept by faith that I have been gathered by the Spirit of God unto the name of the Lord Jesus Christ according to the principles laid out in the Word of God, is openly mocked by other Christians. “How can anyone be so proud to say such a thing!” Such exclamations themselves can be quite prideful. On the other hand, one could ask, how can anyone be so arrogant to say, “for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)? Of course, we can be arrogant and proud in saying any of these things. However, let us not fall into this modern disease of, “you can’t know the truth,” or worse still, “everyone has the truth.” I believe that it is possible to go on in the truth found in the Word of God with respect to the Church, and that it is possible to carry it out practically, despite the general failure in Christendom. However, to carry it out in a way that gives even tacit approval to the sectarian state of Christendom is a contradiction to the truth. How can there be a plurality of expressions of oneness?
Nicolas Simon
September 2010