Principles of Fellowship
Withdrawal Not Judging,
But Protection of Self and Truth
"Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness"-Eph. 5:11
By Bro. Robert Roberts, April 1891God has been pleased to subject those who desire to conform to His Word to what sometimes amounts to painful embarrassment, by having required of them things that at first sight are incompatible with one another. They are to do good to all men, and yet not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. They are to be "in the world," and yet to "come out from among them and be separate." They are to love their enemies, and yet to love not the world. They are to be patient with the erring, and yet to abhor that which is evil and not to bear with men that are evil. They are to think no evil, and yet to try professors. They are to submit to wrong, and yet to refuse even to eat with men that are called brethren who espouse wrong doing or error. They are to show hospitality, and yet to receive not into their houses those who bring not the doctrine of Christ.
There is, doubtless, an object in prescribing these apparently conflicting duties. It sets up contrary mental currents that at last bring about a fine equilibrium of character which would not be attainable if duty lay all in one direction. But often the effort to conform brings distress, and it is impossible not to feel pity for men sacrificing one duty in their endeavor to conform to another.
These thoughts are suggested by a current effort which may be well meant enough in some directions, but which cannot receive favor from a complete enlightenment. It is an effort that tacitly invites us to repudiate the policy of insisting upon a wholly-inspired and infallible Bible as the basis of fellowship, by adopting a "basis of fellowship" that omits it. This document is most plausible in its wording, as all efforts in a wrong direction are; but in its meaning and implications it is far worse than its promulgators probably intend or have any idea of.
It formulates an impossible rule of withdrawal, which turns the ecclesia into a judgment seat of the papistic order. The apostolic rule is to "withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly" and from those who teach heresy-without reference to the question of what the Lord may finally think of them. And this rule is defensive in its bearing: not offensive. It means that we are not to be partakers of other men's sins. John lays down the axiom that he that receives the holder of wrong doctrine or practice partakes of his evil deeds.
In withdrawing, we wash our own hands. We leave to God those whom we withdraw from. We are not authorized to judge or condemn them. But this document lays it down that we must not withdraw unless we are prepared to maintain that the cause of withdrawal will make salvation impossible. This would erect an ecclesia into a spiritual judicature, deciding questions which the Lord has reserved for himself. The document proposes "union with all who have not forfeited their right to the fully assured salvation."
How can such a rule be carried out? How can we know who have and who have not forfeited the said right? It is calling on us to pronounce on a matter beyond our jurisdiction, and that has been placed beyond it by the express command to "judge not," "condemn not."
The time for withdrawal is when men drift into unscriptural attitudes of faith or practice. These we note and separate ourselves from, without reference to the question of whether the offenders can be saved, which we cannot decide. And the withdrawal is NOT putting them out, but going out ourselves, as the term implies. We simply go away, saying we cannot be responsible. The attitude prescribed by this suggested "basis" would place the ecclesia in a chair of authority, with power of excommunication, arrogating the right to "cut off" or say the excommunicated cannot be saved.
Faithful men are more truly modest, while more uncompromising toward departure from the Faith than the sentiments that inspire this "basis." Faithful men say- "We have no power to cut off. Christ will do that. But we have power to withdraw; and this we will do-with however much reluctance and pain-when the Word of God and its obligations are tampered with by whomsoever. We will exercise this liberty unhampered by any assumptions as to the position of those who have 'responded to the Gospel call'."
The "basis" declares that all such are- "In union and fellowship with the Father."
This is not true. There were many in the apostolic age who had "obeyed the Gospel call" whom the Apostles repudiated as "enemies of the cross of Christ" (Phil. 3:18); "spots in their feasts of charity" (Jude 12); who claimed to be Jews but were not, but lied (Rev. 3:9).
It is a fundamental principle as to the operation of the Gospel that- "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. 22:14) -and that- "All are not Israel that are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6).
This is a principle which we cannot apply, and which we are not called upon to apply. We do not know who will be chosen of those who have been called. We have nothing to do with saying who will and who will not be saved, as regards profession of the Truth. The thing we have to do is to take care of our own standing in relation to the prevailing corruptions. We refuse to be implicated in these, while entertaining the very best wishes concerning all men. We mingle with Bible charity the most decisive resolution not to be compromised by any class of men, whether they have gone through the waters of baptism or no.
Unless we observed this apostolically prescribed scrupulosity, the Truth would soon be suffocated and disappear. Men who decline it are the enemies of the Truth without intending it perhaps-all which will appear in a very plain light when the expediences of the passing mortal hour are at an end in the manifested presence of the Author of the seven messages to the ecclesias.
