FINAL POINTS
46. The Ecclesial Guide
All ecclesias, and individuals, should have at
hand a guide that, if it were read and observed, would go a long way toward
solving many ecclesial problems. Unfortunately, A Guide to the Formation and
Conduct of Christadelphian Ecclesias is more honored than used. It seems to be
standard procedure for human nature to acknowledge the benefit of a principle in
theory, but when provoked by circumstance, promptly to forget to implement that
very principle that is most relevant. We all tend, under duress, to convince
ourselves that rules are made for other people, and that the position in which
we may suddenly find ourselves is very different from that which the framers of
principles and rules envisioned. In theory, the wisdom of the words of Christ,
“Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt.
6:21), is unquestionable; but they are so easily set aside when we gaze in fond
rapture upon a gleaming new automobile or a fine house or some exquisite new
fashions. The standard, “Turn the other cheek”, is wonderfully
appropriate if your friend’s cheek is the one smitten, but we can always
think of good reasons why we should retaliate.
In just such a way, The Ecclesial Guide supplies
those balanced judgments that are most needed when in controversy they are most
easily forgotten. Though no one would say the rules are perfect, as the Bible
itself is, at the very least they are dispassionate commentaries on the relevant
passages dealing with ecclesial conduct. They have the benefit of being sound
advice from a bystander not personally involved at all in whatever conflict is
immediately at hand. Principles have a way of becoming distorted and either
over-stressed or under-stressed when the holders thereof come under intense
pressure.
A few brief excerpts from the relevant sections
should suffice here:
32. Cases of Sin and Withdrawal:
“Withdrawal is a serious step, and ought not be lightly taken against
any brother. It erects a barrier and inflicts a stain not easily removed. It
ought never to be taken until all the resources of the Scriptural rule of
procedure have been exhausted. The rule laid down by Christ for the treatment of
personal offences (Matt. 18:15-17) is doubtless applicable to sin in
general....”
39. Absence and Separate Meetings Unlawful:
“It is....an imperative law that the brethren must be one body, and
that they must submit one to another. It is a law of the house that each brother
and sister must meet at the table of the Lord on the first day of the week for
the breaking of bread. Nothing but denial of the truth in the assembly, or overt
disobedience of the Lord’s commandments among them, can justify a brother
or sister in absenting himself or herself from the breaking of bread.. If the
matters of difference....do not affect the question of the truth or the
commandments, it is the duty of the lesser to submit to the greater number...
If, instead of submitting, they separate themselves, they put themselves in a
false position from which worse things than those they objected to will come.
Their action means that the greater number ought to submit to the lesser, or
that there should never be submission to the wishes of others, and that a
disappointed minority should always leave a meeting where their wishes cannot
prevail. Such a doctrine is fraught with confusion and ruin, and is inconsistent
with the most elementary commandments of Christ.”
40. A Time to Separate, and How to Go about
it: “It is a maxim of universal law (divine included) that no man is
to be judged without a hearing. If it is true of one man, it is true of a number
of men, and to be applied as scrupulously to an erring ecclesia as to an
individual delinquent. Suppose this rule is not acted on, — suppose the
aggrieved minority simply depart, without formulating their grievances, and
without giving the offending majority an opportunity of either justifying or
removing the causes of offence, the situation is afterwards embarrassed for the
minority as regards other ecclesias. Other ecclesias are in fellowship with the
offending majority; and if there be not a correct mode of procedure, those other
ecclesias, will not have it in their power to decide upon the
issue.”
41. Involved in Another Ecclesia’s
Trouble: This section is too lengthy to be quoted here in full, though it is
all very good and very relevant. A point certainly worth stressing: any
disfellowshiped brother or ecclesia is deserving of the right of appeal to
someone, and there is no weakness implied in a conscientious, even drawn-out,
examination of all matters pertaining to a disagreement.
42. Ecclesias in Relation one to Another:
“The bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission
to the commandments of the Lord. It is nothing less than a calamity when rupture
on secondary issues sets in, where these other conditions of union
exist....
“There ought to be no interference of one
ecclesia with another....An ecclesia has no right to judge except for itself.
This is the independence not to be interfered with: but a similar right to judge
must be conceded to all, and the exercise of it, if tempered with a respectful
and proper procedure, would never offend an enlightened body anywhere. In the
majority of cases the withdrawal of one ecclesia is practically the withdrawal
of all, since all will respect it till set aside, and since, in most cases, a
concurrent investigation would lead to its ratification. But there may be cases
where a reasonable doubt exists, and where a second ecclesia will come to a
different conclusion from the first. What is to be done then? Are the two
ecclesias that are agreed in the basis of fellowship to fall out because they
are of a different judgment on a question of fact? This would be a lamentable
result — a mistaken course every way. They have each exercised their
prerogative of independent judgment: let each abide by its own decision, without
interfering with each other. The one can fellowship a certain brother, the other
cannot. Are they to aggravate the misery of a perhaps very trumpery and unworthy
affair by refusing to recognize each other, because they differ in judgment
about one person? What sadder spectacle can there be than to see servants of the
Lord Jesus frowning at each other, and denying each other the comfort of mutual
friendship and help, because they cannot agree about a given action or speech or
perhaps some unworthy person. The course of wisdom in such a case is certainly
to agree to differ. An ecclesia acting otherwise — demanding of another
ecclesia, as a condition of fellowship, that they shall endorse their decision
in a case that has become the business of both — is in reality infringing
that principle of ecclesial independence which they desire to have recognized in
their own case. It would be to impose what might be an intolerable tyranny upon
the brethren.”