Questions Young People Ask Regarding The True Ground Of Gathering: Good Questions That Deserve Good Answers
Stanley Bruce Anstey
Table of Contents
A Prefatory Note
Originally, some of these questions and answers were taken up in an address at a conference in Denver, Colorado (September 2009). On account of the brevity of time, it was not possible at that time to go through all of the questions that I address in this book. Hence, this present publication has afforded me the opportunity to expand the remarks somewhat and treat the subjects more fully.
It is my sincere desire that these answers to questions on the subject of gathering will produce a deeper understanding of this truth and a greater appreciation for it; I also pray that it will produce a willingness to walk in it. The Lord values each and every Christian who has paid a price for being identified with the testimony of those gathered to the Lord’s name where this much-maligned truth is upheld and taught, and He will reward each accordingly in a coming day. “Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown” (Rev. 3:11).
It is, therefore, out of love and affection for the young people that this present publication is sent forth.
November 1, 2009
Introduction
I’d like to take up some of the hard questions that young people struggle with in regard to being gathered to the Lord’s name on the ground of Matthew 18:20: "For where two or three are gathered together unto My name, there am I in the midst." My desire is to try to unravel some of these conundrums for those who are truly searching for answers. I only hope that what I have to say will give the seeker of truth a fuller understanding of the principles involved in the divine ground of gathering for Christians.
For those of you who have grown up in the assemblies of the so-called “gathered saints,” I know that your parents are—for the most part—passionate about the truth of being gathered to the Lord’s name. They put it right up there next to being saved. You’ve probably heard them say things like, “I know the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour, and I’m gathered to His precious name.” Needless to say, they believe that the assembly, as you know it, is the true and right way for Christians to gather. They also understand that the way in which we meet goes against the grain of mainstream Christianity, and that that path is a narrow one as far as fellowship is concerned. Nevertheless, they are, as I am, deeply convicted that it is the only right and Scriptural way for Christians to assemble for worship and ministry—and we dearly want to communicate that to you. We want you to “buy the truth” concerning the assembly (Prov. 23:23) by searching it out for yourself and seeing that those things are truly Scriptural (Acts 17:11). Our prayer is that you would value it and walk in it as we seek to do.
I know that many of you are looking into this subject, and this is good, because we all need to know why we are gathered to the Lord’s name. But in your searching, I know that some of you are getting confused and are coming away with more questions than answers. Perhaps you’ve looked at the churches in evangelical Christendom and have heard about the blessing going on out there, and then you’ve looked at the assembly in its quaintness and its weakness, and since there doesn't seem to be much is going on there, you have some honest questions. And this is understandable.
I would like to think that your questions are good and honest ones, and I believe that good questions deserve good answers. I think we all agree that the only good and right answers are found in the Word of God. The last thing you need are human opinions and ideas on this subject. Therefore, what I want to bring before you will not be my own ideas and opinions, but principles from the Word of God that will guide your feet. This whole exercise would be a failure if you come away from here, saying, “Bruce thinks this, or Bruce thinks that ... ” It’s not my thoughts that you want; it’s the truth of the Word of God.
Furthermore, it is not my object to bash the Christian groups that are out there today. I am not here to denigrate my fellow Christians in their denominations within evangelical Christendom. If someone is happy to remain in his or her church group, I take no issue with him. The Bible says, “To subvert a man in his cause, the LORD approveth not” (Lam. 3:36). So, I’m not here to try to talk anybody out of their convictions in regard to their ecclesiastical associations. It is not my intention to coerce anyone into the path that we take as gathered to the Lord’s name, who has not the faith or the conviction for it. My object, rather, is to unravel some of the perplexing things that are troubling those who are honestly searching for answers on the subject of Christians being gathered to the Lord’s name.
I would just say at the outset, that in my observation, most of these questions stem from a misunderstanding of the truth itself, and from using a wrong criterion on which to judge what is right and what is wrong. The result of these misunderstandings is that a person is honestly left in a quandary, and he might well wonder whether he is truly in the right place after all. Of course, the only right standard of measure is the truth of God in the Word of God.
Now, just one more thing before we get started: I will try to do my best by giving you answers to these questions from the Word of God, but I want to tell you that it won’t do you any good if your will is at work and you don’t want the truth. So, I hope that we all have the spirit of David, who said, “Teach me Thy way, O LORD, and lead me in a plain path” (Psa. 27:11). A teachable spirit is what the Lord is looking for in us. What I’m saying now is that our state needs to be right if we are going to profit from this exercise. If we are honestly seeking the truth, I believe that the Lord will use His Word to guide us. He said, “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine” (John 7:17). The condition placed on this promise of knowing the truth is that we would be willing to “do” His will upon learning it. The Lord is not interested in teaching us His will if we are not willing to do it. Therefore, we need to have it settled in our hearts that we will do God’s will—whatever it may be—even if it runs in collision with our own ideas. This is a great place to get to in our souls—being willing to do His will, even if it hurts. This promise of the Lord is as good now as it was when He gave it in His day. If we are willing to do His will, we “shall know of the doctrine.”
With that promise before us, and the Word of God in our hands, let’s look at some of these questions now, and have the Lord answer them for us.
Chapter One: Why Is There Relatively Little Blessing in Our Gospel Efforts?
Question
John 12:32 says that if we lift up the Lord in our meetings, all men will be drawn to Him. If we truly have the Lord in our midst, why aren’t all men being drawn to the assembly meetings? Why are there relatively few with us, and so little blessing in our gospel efforts?
Let’s turn to that passage in John 12 and read verses 31 and 32; “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me.”
First of all, before I try to answer this question, we need to understand that this passage is not speaking about the gospel testimony in the Day of Grace. Nor is it speaking of things having to do with Christians gathering for worship and ministry. The context of the chapter is the millennial kingdom of Christ. The Lord had come to Jerusalem and He was being received by the multitude who cried, “Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord” (vs. 13). The people were looking for Him to set up the kingdom at that time and to reign over it in power and glory, with all the blessing promised by the Old Testament Prophets. The Gentiles are also mentioned as coming up to the feast to worship, which is also a great feature of the millennial kingdom (Zech. 2:11; Isa. 14:1; 56:6; Psa. 47:9; Psa. 72:10-11). The Lord saw that in order for all this to be fulfilled, He, as a “grain of wheat,” had to “fall into the ground and die” (vs. 24). And if He did, he would bring forth “much fruit.” In fact, it was the very “cause” for which He had come to that “hour” (vss. 27-30). But, and if, He was “lifted up” on the cross in rejection, He promised that there would be a day when He would draw all nations to Himself in the Millennium. The world was about to crucify the Lord, but in doing so, it would condemn itself. Thus, the Lord said, “Now is the judgment of this world.”
Hence, this passage is not speaking of believers lifting up the Lord in the gospel testimony, but unbelievers lifting Him up on the cross in rejection and derision. The next verse (33) confirms this. It says, “This He said, signifying what death He should die.” Furthermore, the drawing of “all men” unto Himself, of which the Lord speaks here, is not referring to people being saved by the gospel in this day, but of all nations of the earth submitting themselves to the Lord in the Millennium. Many of them will not even have faith (Psa. 18:44; Psa. 66:3; Psa. 81:15 – J. N. Darby Trans.). This couldn’t be speaking of gospel campaigns that are going on today in evangelical Christendom, for even the greatest and most successful campaigns don’t even come close to drawing “all men” to the Lord.
So, this is a good question, but you are using a wrong verse of Scripture in connection with it. I realize that I haven't addressed the question yet, but I think it's important to understand what John 12:32-33 is really speaking about first. Your question is: If we are meeting in the right way as Christians should—and those in the church denominations are not—why do they have so much blessing and we don’t! This is a good question and it deserves a good answer.
Answer:
The problem here is that we have made success in the gospel testimony the sign of whether a group of Christians is on the right ecclesiastical ground. This is a mistake. It’s quite understandable how a person could come up with this idea though. You would think that if God approved of something, He would identify with it in power, and His blessing would be upon it so that all could see it—but this is not necessarily so.
I believe that there is a good reason why there is much blessing in the gospel in the evangelical churches today and relatively little among those gathered to the Lord’s name.
Blessing Through God's Word
Firstly, God blesses His Word wherever it goes out. Paul said to Timothy, “The Word of God is not bound” (2 Tim. 2:9). At that time, he was bound in prison. Blessing had gone out through his labours for a number of years, but now he was set aside. Nevertheless, he was confident that blessing would continue to go out in the gospel, even though he was bound. Paul knew that God could, and would, use others in the spread of the gospel. He understood that the Lord didn’t need him to get the message out, though He had used him in the past in that work. Whoever is diligent enough to go out with His Word will have results in the gospel—sooner or later. The Lord said, “So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isa. 55:11). Those in the evangelical denominations have been diligent to “preach the Word” (2 Tim. 4:2), and God is blessing His Word—that is why there is blessing in many denominational churches. We should be thankful for every effort there is among Christians to spread the good news and pray for a great harvest of souls. We mustn’t think that blessing in the gospel through the Word is confined to one group of Christians; the gathered saints have no monopoly on the Word of God going forth.
As mentioned, to equate blessing in the gospel with ecclesiastical correctness is a mistake. A person might look at the various church organizations and think, “God must approve of the denominations because He is using them to save people.” It may look like God is using the evangelical churches in Christendom, but it is not those man-made organizations He is using—it is His Word that He is using. As I said, God can and does use His Word for blessing wherever it is ministered. If a so-called Pastor or Minister preaches the Word to his audience, the Spirit of God will take it and apply it to souls, and they will get saved. It is undeniable that people have been blessed in these places. But, it is not a sign that God approves of man-made denominational order. A person could take the Word of God into an ungodly place like a tavern, and the Spirit could use it for someone’s salvation. But we certainly wouldn’t say that God is using taverns! It doesn’t justify their existence. (I’m not equating an ungodly tavern with denominational churches but just illustrating my point that God can use His Word anywhere.)
It’s a fact: God blesses His Word wherever it is given out, and by whomever gives it out. In Philippians (chapter 1) Paul speaks of some who were preaching the Word with wrong motives—and yet God was still blessing it! Again, that doesn’t mean that God approves of His servants who preach with ulterior motives; it just shows that His Word will be a blessing wherever and however it is given out—even if a person is in a wrong state of soul.
There is More Manpower in the Denominational Churches
Secondly, there is more (observable) blessing in the gospel in the evangelical churches than among the saints gathered to the Lord’s name simply because there is a greater number of individuals in those churches engaged in this work. Psalm 68:11 says, “The Lord gave the Word: great was the company of those that published it.” I emphasize the word “great” in this verse—a greater number of persons engaged in a work usually translates into greater results. It is quite simple; those in the churches have more manpower, and naturally there should be more results. Those in the evangelical churches are to be commended for their diligence in gospel work. In fact, they put us to shame.
The results we hear about blessing in the churches around us can be rather intimidating, but numbers can be deceiving. Let me give you an example. A friend of ours told us that at his church, there isn’t one week that goes by where there isn’t at least one person saved! I asked him how many people were in his church, and I believe he said there were about 3500. But suppose, for easy math calculations and for sake of an illustration, it was 5000 people. That means that there would be roughly 50 people saved every year. But suppose we took a zero off that number and there were only 500 people in that church. How many would be saved per year at that rate? It would be five. If we took another zero off that number, and there were only 50 people in that church—about the size of most of the assemblies of the gathered saints—how many would be saved a year at that rate? Well, it would be .5—or one person every two years! Well then, that doesn’t sound so intimidating. Their success rate in ratio to the number of people they have is about the same as the gathered saints! So, the next time someone tells me that someone gets saved in their mega church every week, I’m going to say, “Is that all? With all those people you have there, you’d think that you would have more results than that!” So, let’s not get occupied with statistics; our first responsibility is to do the will of God, and to leave the results with the Lord. Ultimately, it is God that gives “the increase” in the harvest of souls in the gospel (1 Cor. 3:6).
I would just add one thing here; if you are seriously concerned about the sad results in gospel work among us, maybe you should think about getting involved. Oftentimes, those who criticize this weakness are the ones who seem to do the least.
Summary:
There is more blessing in the gospel in the evangelical churches today than among the “gathered saints,” because they have been more diligent in this than we have. And, they have a greater number of persons engaged in that work, and statistically, this usually produces greater results.
Chapter Two: Why Do We Break Bread in Separation From Other Christians?
QUESTION:
If we profess to meet on the ground of the one body, why do we take a position of separation from all other members of the body, and not break bread with them? It seems totally inconsistent with New Testament truth, which presents the Christian community as being one happy family that walks together in love. The Bible teaches that we should walk together in happy unity with our brethren, not separate ourselves from them.
Answer:
The problem here is that the person who asks this question hasn’t considered where we are in Church history. Seven of the eight New Testament writers tell us that in the latter times there would be a great departure by the masses from “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 4:3-4; Jude 3-4). It is important, therefore, to have an understanding of the times, and to know the character of the day in which we live. We are not in Pentecostal days, or even in times of great revival; we are in “the last days” of the Church’s history on earth (2 Tim. 3:1), and there is an irremediable ruin in the Christian testimony.
The Second Epistles Insist on Separation in a Day of Ruin
Having established this fact, I would hasten to say that God certainly desires that all His people would walk together practically on earth as one happy family. But, He has also told us that when the Christian testimony would corrupt itself, and ruin would come in, that we are to apply the truth of the New Testament in the modifications given to us in the second epistles. These epistles deal with the ruin that would come into the Christian profession and how to order the believer’s path in relation to it.
There are two things that are prominent in each of the second epistles: firstly, the evidence of departure in some way from true Christianity—either in doctrine or in practice. Secondly, there is the insisting on the believer’s need to separate himself from the corruption and the error that has come in—not just individually, but also collectively.
The second epistle to the Corinthians deals with a worldly movement among them that was corrupting their doctrine and practice. The answer is, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing” (2 Cor. 6:17).
The second epistle to the Thessalonians deals with a movement which had come in that denied the Lord’s coming and other eschatological (prophetic) events, and it was having a serious negative effect on their walk. The answer is, “Withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the instruction which he received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
The second epistle to Timothy deals with erroneous doctrinal teachings and profane corruptions that would come into the house of God. The word there is, “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthen; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If therefore one shall have purified himself from these in separating himself from them, he shall be a vessel to honour, sanctified, serviceable to the Master” (2 Tim. 2:19-21).
The second epistle of Peter deals with the inevitable departure from practical godliness in the Christian testimony and warns believers not to be “led away [along with] the error of the wicked” by keeping themselves clear of it (2 Peter 3:17).
The second epistle of John deals with the seriousness of letting go of the doctrine of Christ’s Person. It enjoins us to keep ourselves separate from those who teach such things—so much so, that we are not even to receive them into our homes. In fact, we are told to not even “greet” such people (2 John 8-11).
The person who asks this question regarding separation is reading his or her Bible without reference to the second epistles. Let us say again, that God desires all the members of the body of Christ to be together in practical fellowship (Eph. 4:1-16). It is His ideal. But since ruin is everywhere in the Christian testimony, God’s Word (in the second epistles) indicates that we are to take a position of separation from the disorder. Second Timothy 2:19-21 is particularly helpful in guiding us in these difficult days in this regard. It indicates that we are to dissociate ourselves from everything in the house of God (the Christian profession) that is tainted with error by withdrawing from it. This would take in any kind of error—doctrinal, moral, or ecclesiastical. Hence, practising the truth collectively—as meeting together for worship and ministry—with all the members of the body of Christ, is not possible today. This is because many are ignorant of the true ground of gathering, or if they do know it they're not willing to practice it, or they are engaged in some form of evil doctrine or practice with which we are not to have fellowship with.
As mentioned, the second epistles anticipate the ruin of the public testimony of the Church and give certain instructions that modify the application of the principles given in the teaching of the other epistles. It is not that God’s Word contradicts itself, but rather, that another course of action must be followed since ruin is upon us. To illustrate this point, suppose you worked in a large plant or factory where there were specific directions to be followed in your normal job function; but if certain problems arose, you were given a different set of directions to follow in that emergency. In like manner, this is what Scripture teaches in the second epistles in regard to the day of ruin.
The second epistles do not set aside the truth in the other epistles, but they alter the course of the believer in the application of those truths. All the truth of God can still be practiced today, but it must be practiced in separation from the confusion. For example, we must view the truth in Ephesians 4, concerning the keeping of "the unity of the Spirit" with the members of the "one body" of Christ, through the "porthole" of 2nd Timothy—that is, from the perspective of the ruin that has come into the Christian testimony. We can still meet on the ground of the one body and practice that truth, but we just can’t do it today with all the members of the body, as God originally intended.
The Right Attitude in Separation—Humiliation
Having taken this position of separation in the house of God, we have to guard at all times against pride rising up in our hearts. We must be careful not to have an attitude of being better or more faithful than those from whom we have separated. The Lord will not identify with a “holier than thou” attitude (Isa. 65:5). The right attitude is that of humiliation. J. N. Darby said, “If anyone speaks of separation from evil, without being humiliated, let him take care lest his position becomes simply only that which at all times has constituted sects.” The right spirit in purging oneself from the confusion in the house of God involves self-judgment, not self-righteousness.
Separation within the house of God is a painful thing because it has to do with separating from many true believers who are unconcerned about their associations with the corruption. It should tear at our hearts to have to do this because we love all of our brethren. However, obedience to God’s Word must have precedence over all of our personal preferences. In fact, obedience of this kind is actually a proof of our love for our brethren. “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments” (1 John 5:2). Those gathered unto the Lord’s name take this position of separation in Christendom because it is in accordance with God’s Word.
Many think that the answer is to stay in the confusion and try to repair the errors in Christendom, but this is clearly not according to God’s Word. When “tares” were introduced among the wheat, creating confusion in the field, the householder told his servants to not attempt to fix the problem, but to wait “until the harvest”—which is “the completion of the age”—then it would be sorted out by the Lord Himself (Matt. 13:24-30). Thankfully, the Lord has not laid that “burden” upon His people (Rev. 2:24-25). The answer is to keep oneself clear of the confusion and error by separating from it. Second Timothy 2:22 indicates that after separating from the confusion in the house, God will give us some with whom we can walk in this path of separation. This is what those who are gathered to the Lord’s name are doing when they meet together for worship and ministry in separation. They seek to practice all the truth of God, but because of certain modifying factors in the second epistles they can’t do it with all the members of the body, as God originally intended. Hence, the gathered saints would love to break bread with all of their fellow brethren in the body of Christ, but there are certain qualifying things that preclude this. Namely, people must be sound in doctrine and godly in practice before they can break bread at the Lord's Table. If some profess to be believers but will not separate from evil (2 Tim. 2:19), we cannot break bread with them.
We know a dear sister in the Lord whose church denomination is in an upheaval. The minister denies the inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, and the resurrection of Christ. He also teaches that there are many ways to be saved, and supports gay marriage in the church, and has also left his wife. We told her that the Word of God indicates that she should separate from this disorder, but she thinks that she would be unfaithful to depart having been with that church denomination all of her life. But all the while she remains there, she becomes more and more vexed and frustrated. The answer is to separate; it is God’s expressed will in a day of ruin. If she did this, it might exercise others there to separate as well, but remaining in fellowship with this confusion and error negates any power in individual testimony that she could hope to have. What she is doing may be loving and well meaning, but it is not God’s path for the believer who desires to be faithful.
Summary:
The “gathered saints” occupy a position of separation from the religious confusion and error in Christendom because the Word of God (the second epistles) enjoins us to do so. It is the only Scriptural position to take when the ruin of the Christian testimony is irremediable.
Chapter Three: Why Are Those Gathered to the Lord's Name Such a Small Testimony?
QUESTION:
Matthew 18:20 and Luke 22:7-10 indicate that the Spirit of God is the divine Gatherer; He leads Christians to the place of God’s appointment. If the position of the so-called “gathered saints” is that ground, why are there so few there? Either there is a problem with the Spirit’s power to gather, or, maybe this is not the place to which He is leading people.
The problem here is that we have made the numerical size of a company of Christians the measure of their ecclesiological correctness. That is, if there are a lot of people in a certain Christian fellowship, then that must be a place to which the Spirit of God is leading people. This, however, is a wrong criterion on which to judge the true ground of gathering. Wherever did we get the idea that big was right? It is a worldly principle; we see it in every sphere of life in the world—in business, in sports, etc. However, it shouldn't have any place in the Church of God.
We do not read in Scripture that there would be large groups of faithful believers in the last days. The Bible indicates quite the opposite. In the last days of the Christian testimony we are told that evil men will increase in number—not faithful men (2 Tim. 3:13). This is the main difference between the two epistles written to Timothy. In 1 Timothy the mass in the Christian profession is seen going on well, but there were a few individuals who had turned aside into error. But in 2 Timothy (which describes the last days) it is just the reverse; the mass is seen as having gone bad and there are relatively few individuals going on faithfully. In fact, in Scripture, the only groups that are said to be large in the last days are heretical movements! For instance, 2 Peter 2:1-2 says, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who shall privily bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways.” I am not saying that all large groups of Christians today in evangelical Christendom are evil and that they teach damnable doctrines. We are simply pointing out that if large numbers are the sign of being right, then the Catholic Church would be the right place that God approves of—they have more people than any other denomination! Surely, we can’t be so naive as to think that having large numbers equates having to God's approval.
God is not as occupied with the increase of numbers as we are. Have you noticed in Scripture that when numbers are mentioned that it always says, “About three thousand,” or “about five thousand”? (Acts 2:41; 4:4) Even when counting a small number, it says, “About twelve” (Acts 19:7). God is showing us that we shouldn’t be occupied with the number of people involved in His testimony—which, by the way, was David’s sin (2 Sam. 24:1).
The often-heard remark is, “Our church is growing.” What is meant is that the number of people in that particular group is getting larger. Now, we all want to see this, but in Scripture, growth is used to denote spiritual development in the soul, not the numerical size of a group of Christians. Suppose I went to a gathering that had 50 believers who came together regularly for worship and ministry, and I saw that there was not much interest there. They were more interested in sports and their houses, etc. While I’m thankful that they were coming together, I go away saying to myself, “I wish there was a little more devotion there.” Then, after a year I come back to the same company of 50 believers, and immediately I see a marked change. They are really keen about the things of God. They are full of questions and stay around after the meetings for fellowship. Their understanding and maturity in the truth has definitely progressed. Though they have not added one person to their number, I could say that they have really grown! This is the way in which growth is spoken of in Scripture.
When we get occupied with numbers, there is always a temptation to compromise principles to bring people in. For instance, we could get more people into our meetings if we advertised that there was going to be a rock band here. But we are not going to do that because we must serve according to the principles of God’s Word if we want the Lord’s approval (2 Tim. 2:5).
I realize that I haven’t answered the question, so let’s look at some Scriptures that will do that.
Answer:
There are many thousands of people who are gathered to the Lord’s name today, but relatively speaking, they are only a few in comparison to the great mass of believers all over the world. This, however, does not mean that they are not meeting on right principles. I believe that there are at least three reasons for the smallness of this testimony.
It is a Remnant Testimony
The first reason why the “gathered saints” are relatively few in number is that it is a day of small things. Zechariah 4:9-10 says, “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you. For who hath despised the day of small things?” The times in which Zechariah was called to live were remnant testimony days. At that time, the Lord had allowed His people to be carried away to Assyria (2 Kings 17:6) and to Babylon (2 Kings 24-25), and only a remnant of them had returned to the divine center in Jerusalem. One of the characteristic features of a remnant testimony is that it is “small”—most of God’s people are viewed as not being among them. We live in remnant testimony days in the Church’s history, and we cannot expect that there will be large numbers gathered to the Lord’s name in the way in which God originally intended before ruin had come in.
I believe that it is extremely important that we understand what is meant by “a remnant testimony”—so let me explain this more thoroughly. A great principle on which God acts, when that which He has committed into the hands of men in testimony fails, is that He reduces its size, strength, glory, and numbers, and carries it on thereafter in a remnant form. He does not identify Himself with that testimony in power and glory as He once did when it was first established. If He were to do that, it would appear before the world as though He condoned its fallen and corrupted state. Instead, He falls back upon His sovereign power and grace to maintain His testimony—but in a remnant form. The word “remnant” means a small part of the whole. Hence, the very nature of such a testimony is smallness in size. If all His people were there to participate in it, it wouldn’t be a remnant. God has acted on this principle in Israel in the past; He will do it again with the Jewish remnant in a coming day; and He is doing it today in the Christian testimony.
To see this principle in God’s Word more clearly, let’s turn to Deuteronomy 12:5-7; “The place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there, even unto His habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come. And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks: and there ye shall eat before the Lord your God.” This clearly shows that God’s original desire for His people Israel was to gather them together for worship at this one place of His choosing, which was Jerusalem.
Now let’s turn to 1 Kings 11:9-13, “And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned away from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared to him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father’s sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David My servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen.”
Then, in verses 29-36 it says, “And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field: and Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces: And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: (but he shall have one tribe for My servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) because that they have forsaken Me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in My ways, to do that which is right in Mine eyes, and to keep My statutes and My judgments, as did David his father. Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David My servant’s sake, whom I chose, because he kept My commandments and My statutes: but I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes. And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David My servant may have a light alway before Me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen Me to put My name there.”
Then in chapter 12:22-24 it says, “The word of the Lord came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying, Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the people, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from Me.”
We see from this, that although it was God’s original desire to have all His people gather at Jerusalem to offer their sacrifices (Deut. 12), since failure had come in, He would no longer continue His testimony at His divine center in the power and glory that it once had. Solomon and the children of Israel had failed and had turned from the Lord to idolatry (1 Kings 11:10-11, 33), and this led the Lord to change His ways in regard to them. He would reduce the size, power, and glory of His testimony in Israel and carry it on thereafter in a “remnant.” This is the first time in Scripture that that word is used in connection with the public testimony of God’s people. The “first-time rule” in Bible interpretation is important to observe. That is, when something is first used in Scripture, it usually gives the sense of how it will be used thereafter in other passages. Hence, we do well to pay attention to what is said here. The principle of a remnant testimony is developed in more detail in Ezra and Nehemiah, and in the writings of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi; however, I have turned you to this passage in 1 Kings because it sets forth the principle clearly and simply.
The important thing to see here is that there was a marked change in God’s ways when failure came in. He removed ten of the tribes from the divine center and kept only “one tribe” there—a remnant. This is not a contradiction of God’s principles, but a change in His ways when wholesale failure had come in.
Now you might say, “I can see this principle in God’s dealings with Israel in the Old Testament, but can it be applied to those who live in New Testament times? Is there really such a thing as a remnant testimony in the Church?” The answer, unequivocally, is yes. You see it in the passage that we looked at in 2 Timothy 2:19-22. There, God encourages exercised believers to separate from the mixture in the house of God and to retreat to a remnant position “with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.”
But to see this more clearly, turn now to Revelation, chapters 2 and 3. These chapters outline the prophetic history of the Church from its early days, just after the apostles, right down to its last days. If we follow the course of things as depicted in these addresses to the seven churches, we will see a downward course in the Christian testimony, until finally, a point of no recovery is reached, and thereafter, the Lord acts on the principle of a remnant testimony.
In Ephesus, we learn that “the angel of the church” (the responsible leaders) rightly judged all that was inconsistent with the Lord. It says that they would not “bear them which are evil.” But sadly, their heart was not with Him in it (Rev. 2:2-4). In Smyrna, any further slide downward was temporarily stayed by the great persecutions that came upon the Church. The severity of the trial cast them back on the Lord. But in Pergamos, when the times of great persecution were ended, “the angel of the church” began tolerating some who held “the doctrine of Balaam,” which is worldliness and idolatry. The angel was not charged with holding these doctrines, but the Lord found fault with them because they did not denounce the evil, as did the angel at Ephesus.
In Thyatira, a worse condition prevailed; “the angel of the church” allowed the same evil doctrine and practice that was held by some in Pergamos to be taught! (Compare Rev. 2:14 with 2:20) What started out as some holding evil doctrine resulted in many teaching the evil doctrine. This shows that if the holding of evil is not judged, it will lead to the propounding of it. In Thyatira, the teaching of this evil had developed into a system of things called “Jezebel,” which surely answers to Catholicism. In the Middle Ages, that wicked system had such a tyrannical grip on the Church at large, with its strength and organization, that it controlled the angel! Those who were in the place of responsibility had failed to deal with it when they could have, and now it had grown into a monster that controlled them! (Compare Acts 27:14-15. The “Euroclydon”—a great Mediterranean wind—swept over the sailing ship, and the sailors could do nothing but “let her drive.”) The figure of “Jezebel” is aptly used here because that woman not only brought idolatry into Israel formally, but she also controlled and manipulated her husband, king Ahab.
Such being the case of the public state of the Church, where there remained no power to deal with evil, the Lord separated a remnant, saying, “But unto you I say, the rest [remnant]...” He let the mass go (Rev. 2:24). Thereafter, He worked with a remnant that would hear what the Spirit was saying to the churches. Here, we have the word “remnant” used in connection with the Christian testimony. It is significant that the Lord did not put on them “the burden” of setting right the confusion in the Christian testimony in an effort to bring the Church back to where it once was. Instead, He turned their focus forward to His coming, saying, “Hold fast till I come” (Rev. 2:25).
From that point forward, a marked change in the Lord’s ways with the church is seen. Up to this point, the voice of the Spirit was to the whole Church. “What the Spirit saith unto the churches” preceded the promise to the overcomer in the first three churches. This indicates that the reward to the overcomer was set before the whole Church because the Lord was still dealing with it at large. But now at this point, that order is reversed. The call to “hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” follows the promise to the overcomer. This is the order in the latter four churches. What the Spirit has to say in regard to Church order is no longer given to the mass—only to the overcomer. This is because it is assumed that only the overcomer will hear what the Spirit is saying—the mass is not expected to hear and repent. Paul’s prediction to Timothy that the masses would “turn away their ears from the truth” has come to pass (2 Tim. 4:2-3), and therefore, the Spirit is no longer speaking to the body at large.
Remarking on this change, J. N. Darby said that the body at large is “dropped” from this point onward, because the public mass in the Christian profession is treated as being incapable of hearing and repenting. W. Kelly said, “The Lord thenceforth puts the promise [to the overcomer] first, and this is because it is vain to expect the Church as a whole to receive it ...a remnant only, overcome, and the promise is for them; as for the others, it is all over.” As a result, the Lord no longer expected the mass of the Christian profession to hear and return to the point from which it had departed. All thought of recovering the Church at large is abandoned because it has reached a point of no recovery. This is why I do not believe that the Spirit is necessarily speaking to every person in Christendom today in regard to the truth of gathering. With most, He is letting them go their own way in regard to their ecclesiastical affiliations.
Working with a remnant testimony since that time, it has pleased the Lord to recover the truth that was lost through the church’s carelessness in the centuries before. However, He has not seen fit to recover all the truth at once. The remnant referred to in Revelation 2:24-29 refers to the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and others like them who separated from the evil of “Jezebel” in Medieval times. They were told to “hold fast” to what little truth they did have. Sometime later, leading up to the Reformation, the Lord allowed a little more truth to be recovered—such as the supremacy of the Bible and faith in Christ alone for salvation. But that movement of the Spirit was impeded by the Reformers turning to certain national governments for help against the persecutions of the church of Rome. This was tantamount to turning to the flesh for help instead of relying on the Lord (Jer. 17:5; Psa. 118:8-9; Isa. 31:1). The result was the forming of the great national churches in Christendom, and the deadness of Protestantism began, as depicted in the church at Sardis (Rev. 3:1-6).
It was not until the early 1800s that the Lord gave a full recovery of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). It happened when men stepped away from all formal, man-made organization in the Church. This is depicted in the Lord's address to the church at Philadelphia (Rev. 3:7-13). At this time, God established a corporate testimony to the truth of the one body. Prior to this time, the remnant had been made up of individuals who sought to go on faithfully in separation from the corruption of the Roman church. We are now in days when every man is doing that which is right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25), and most are complacent in their low state. This is depicted in the church at Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22).
The point for us to see here is that the Christian testimony has reached a point of irremediable ruin, and this has called for a change in the Lord’s ways with it. He has let go of any attempt to restore the public state of the Church and is now working in a remnant testimony.
Just as it was with Israel, to maintain a remnant testimony today to the truth of the one body, the Lord does not need to have every last Christian in the world to be gathered to His name, though it is His desire for them. As mentioned, the very meaning of the word remnant implies that not all are there. In divine prerogative and grace, God is taking one here and one there, and He is gathering them unto the Lord’s name so that this remnant testimony may be carried on. The maintaining of it is a sovereign work. This is seen in the Lord’s remark to Philadelphia; “He that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth” (Rev. 3:7). No man or devil can hinder its continuance, though it might appear to carry on in much feebleness. Humbling as it may be, He does not need any one of those whom He has gathered, regardless of how gifted or spiritual they might be. If we don’t want to be there and we go away, the Lord will gather someone else so that this remnant testimony will be carried on until His coming. The fact that any are gathered in the first place is wholly a work of God; the grace that saves a soul is the same grace that gathers them unto the Lord’s name. If any of us have heard “what the Spirit saith unto the churches” and sees the truth of gathering, it is only because He has opened our ears (Prov. 20:12).
The “Brethren” Are Not God’s Remnant in Christianity
Now this might seem like I'm saying that the brethren gathered to the Lord's name are God’s remnant today—His faithful few—and all other Christians are just the failing mass. But this is a misunderstanding.
I recall brother C. E. Lunden saying that, properly speaking, all true believers among the mass of mere professors in Christendom are God's remnant in Christianity. He also said that, ecclesiastically, the gathered saints simply occupy a remnant position, in testimony, and are where all the remnant (every true believer) should be, as gathered to the Lord’s name. The gathered saints, therefore, at best, are only part of God’s remnant; they make no claim to be the remnant. They may be accused of believing that they are God’s chosen few, but these accusations are bogus.
It may be that people have thought that brethren are saying that there is ruin out there in the church denominations, but not among them, because they are doing things right. This too, is a misunderstanding. Brethren do not see themselves apart from the ruin; they fully own their part in it. They often refer to Daniel’s prayer as an example—where he owns his part in the failure in Israel (Dan. 9). The fact that we have people among us that don’t believe the very principles of our existence ecclesiastically ought to be proof enough that the brethren are in a weakened state. There is such a thing as being in a right position ecclesiastically but be in a wrong condition spiritually. This is generally the case among brethren.
The gathered saints have been set in a very privileged position in the Christian testimony, but sad to say, as a whole, they have not been faithful—and they will freely own it. So, this idea of the brethren thinking that they are God’s only faithful ones is pure fiction. They see themselves as being quite unfaithful, though extremely privileged.
Practicing Some Aspects of the Truth is Unpopular
A second reason why the “gathered saints” are relatively small in number is that they seek to practice all of the truth of God—and some of these things are not popular. Things such as worshipping in spirit and in truth without musical instrumentation (John 4:23-24; Acts 17:24-25); the sister’s place in the Church (1 Cor. 11:2-16; 14:34-40; 1 Tim. 2:9-15); corporate judgment—excommunication (1 Cor. 5:1-13), and other such truths, are not popular. Most Christians today don’t want to be connected with something that curtails their lifestyle.
God’s Hand in Governmental Dealing Has Been on Us
The third reason for the smallness of numbers among those who are gathered to the Lord’s name is that we have failed in our responsibility as gathered to the Lord’s name, and the hand of God has been upon us in a governmental way. Consequently, He has reduced us numerically in order to humble us. This, again, is to our shame. Realizing this will not make a person proud.
We have been proud that we are the ones that the Lord has gathered to His name, even though it was really the work of sovereign grace that has brought us there. This, of course, is not the spirit to have when the Christian testimony is in ruins. If we have been gathered as such, we have nothing to boast in, for it has been His grace alone that has granted such a privilege. If those whom He has gathered to His name are a testimony, they are a testimony to the fact that there is a ruin in the Christian testimony; it is certainly nothing to be proud about. As a result of our poor state, the Lord has had His hand on us, and has reduced the numbers among the gathered saints from what it once was. Let us “hear ye the rod, and who hath appointed it” (Mic. 6:9).
Zephaniah 3:11-12 gives us the principle of the Lord’s governmental action. It says, “In that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings, wherein thou hast transgressed against Me: for then I will take away out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride, and thou shalt no more be haughty because of My holy mountain. I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the LORD.”
Summary:
The simple answer as to why the numbers are relatively small among the “gathered saints” is:
Being that it is a remnant testimony, it is supposed to be small—it’s “the nature of the beast.” The Spirit of God is not necessarily gathering every last Christian on the earth to the Lord’s name to maintain this testimony. Through sovereign grace, He is keeping a “light” (1 Kings 11:36) on earth as to the truth of the one body in practice until the Lord comes.
Those gathered to the Lord’s name seek to practice all of the truth of God in connection with gathering together for worship and ministry, and some of those things, as we have noted, are not popular. Therefore, most Christians are not interested in identifying with this movement.
Those gathered to the Lord’s name have failed, and the hand of God has been upon them governmentally. He has reduced the numerical size of this remnant testimony to humble those connected with it.
Chapter Four: What's Wrong With Going to a Denominational Church?
Question:
What is wrong with some of the “gathered saints” going with other Christians to their church? After all, they love the Lord too!
The person who asks this question does not understand the position we have taken in separation from the ecclesiastical confusion in Christendom. It makes us wonder why they are among the “gathered saints” in the first place. Don’t misunderstand me; we are happy and thankful for all who have taken their place at the Lord’s Table, but we do need to understand why we are there—and it’s clear from this question that some do not.
Answer:
There are several reasons why it is inconsistent for those who are gathered to the Lord’s name to be attending services in a denominational church.
1) It is Hypocritical to Support Something That We Protest Against
First of all, we need to understand the position we have taken as gathered unto the Lord’s name “outside the camp” (Heb. 13:13). “It is a practical but Scriptural protest against the unscripturalness of the denominational order in Christendom.” (This is a quote from H. E. Hayhoe, but he was quoting W. Potter.) If a person puts his hand in with those who have taken this position, we must assume that he agrees with that stand. It only follows that if someone who has taken that position in standing apart from the unscriptural order in the denominations, goes back and has fellowship with it, he would be a hypocrite.
Paul speaks of this principle in Galatians 2:18; he said, “If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” As a converted Jew, he had taken the Christian position outside of Judaism. He was actively engaged in encouraging others who had taken that same stand to “hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering” (Heb. 10:23). For him to return to that which his conscience had led him to step away from, and what he preached, would make him “a transgressor.” While Galatians 2:18 refers to Judaism, the principle is the same with regard to the denominational order in Christendom. To go to a so-called church, after we have taken a position of protest against it, is hypocritical. Mr. W. Kelly said something to the effect that it would be sin in him to return to that which his conscience had led him to step away from, and any person who urged him against his conscience was really encouraging him to sin against God.
2) It is Putting Our Sanction on the Unscriptural Order in the Churches
Secondly, by going to a church (so-called), we are, by our act, having fellowship with it, and thus, we are sanctioning and approving of the order there, which is clearly not according to God’s Word. Surely, we cannot expect the Lord to be happy with us doing that.
There is a type in the Old Testament that illustrates this very point. Let’s turn to that passage in 1 Kings 13 and read it, because I believe there is something we can learn from it. “And behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense. And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men’s bones shall be burnt upon thee. And he gave a sign the same day, saying, This is the sign which the LORD hath spoken; Behold, the altar shall be rent, and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out. And it came to pass, when king Jeroboam heard the saying of the man of God, which had cried against the altar in Bethel, that he put forth his hand from the altar, saying, Lay hold on him. And his hand, which he put forth against him, dried up, so that he could not pull it in again to him. The altar also was rent, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the LORD. And the king answered and said unto the man of God, Intreat now the face of the LORD thy God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored me again. And the man of God besought the LORD, and the king’s hand was restored him again, and became as it was before. And the king said unto the man of God, Come home with me, and refresh thyself, and I will give thee a reward. And the man of God said unto the king, If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place: for so was it charged me by the word of the LORD, saying, Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest. So he went another way, and returned not by the way that he came to Bethel.
Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel; and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they told also to their father. And their father said unto them, What way went he? For his sons had seen what way the man of God went, which came from Judah. And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ass. So they saddled him the ass: and he rode thereon, and went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak: and he said unto him, Art thou the man of God that camest from Judah? And he said, I am. Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread. And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place: for it was said to me by the word of the LORD, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest. He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him. So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water. And it came to pass as they sat at the table, that the word of the LORD came unto the prophet that brought him back: and he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee, but camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the LORD did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers.” Well, we know the rest of the story; a "lion" met him in the way and killed him. What a sad ending to his life!
There are some valuable lessons that we can learn from this. In the 12th chapter, Jeroboam had set up two rival altars to the Lord’s altar in Jerusalem.
They denied the unity of God in that there were two calves to represent the one God of Israel. “The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4).
They denied the truth of the one center of gathering for offerings and sacrifices by making Bethel and Dan alternate places of worship. “There shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose” (Deut. 12:11).
They divided the people of God whom He desired to be together as one. “They shall become one”—His original desire for them (Ezek. 37:15-19).
In response to this, God raised up a testimony against those false centers of worship and sacrifice. “A man of God” was sent out of Judah (where God’s center was) to protest against the false position set up by Jeroboam in Bethel. He came “by the word of the LORD,” which shows that it was of God that there should be a testimony against the unscripturalness of those false altars. Similarly, the position the gathered saints take in Christendom in separation from all the unscriptural order in the churches is a Scriptural protest that is of God.
It is significant that the man of God “cried” against the altar, but he prayed “for” the king and the people who offered their sacrifices there (vss. 2, 6). Similarly, this Scriptural protest of the gathered saints is not against the dear believers who worship in their church denominations, but it is against the unscripturalness of the systems that they are involved in. We do not condemn our fellow believers in the church denominations; we love them and pray for their good and blessing. That the king put forth his hand to lay hold on the prophet, points to the fact that there is reproach and persecution connected with the separated position that we take, and we need to be prepared for it. “Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb. 13:13).
After the king’s hand was restored, those at Bethel made a two-fold attempt to entangle the man of God in a false association with them in that place. There was the offer of the king’s “reward” of some worldly advantage, if he would but come home with him and refresh himself. It was an obvious attempt to entice the servant of the Lord out of the path of obedience to God’s Word. This ruse was defeated by the man of God obeying what was given to him by “the word of the LORD” (vss. 7-10). This teaches us that, when tested, we must hold to the principles that we have been taught in God’s Word and let them guide us.
Having failed in that first attempt, the enemy came at the man of God on a far more subtle line. The “old prophet in Bethel” caught up to the man of God and told him a blatant lie to try and get him to turn back and have fellowship with him in that false position. To convince the younger prophet, the old prophet used what he said was, “the word of the LORD.” Sad to say, it worked; the man of God was deceived into returning to Bethel to eat bread with him (vss. 11-32). This teaches us that we must be on guard against fellow servants misusing God’s Word to persuade us in a wrong path. Many sincere Christians have been persuaded by fellow believers to act on some false principle regarding fellowship, and thereby, have been drawn away from the Lord’s table into some false position. Let us, then, be warned by this.
You will notice that the old prophet of Bethel put out considerable energy to get the man of God to compromise and to have fellowship with him in his false position. He desperately wanted him to eat and drink (an expression of fellowship) in that place. The old prophet obviously had a conscience about being in that unscriptural position, and he wanted others to be there with him to ease his burdened conscience.
The man of God failed in that he did not depart from the “place” that he was sent to testify against (vs. 16). He went a short distance and then sat down under a tree, but he was still in Bethel. If he had kept going, perhaps the old prophet would not have caught up to him. His lingering became the occasion of his downfall. It is abundantly clear from this what God thinks of those at His divine center having fellowship with those in a false ecclesiastical position. I think that this answers the question about whether “gathered saints” should go to a church.
In summary, there were three things that happened as a result of the man of God going back to eat and to drink with the old prophet of Bethel. By doing it:
He put his sanction on that place of sacrifice that did not have the sanction of the Lord.
He put his sanction on the unfaithfulness of the old prophet who was in that false position.
He nullified his own testimony against the unscripturalness of the false center, and thus, he ended his history as a witness to the one place of God’s appointment.
3) We Will Lose Our Power as a Witness to the Truth of the Assembly
A third reason why we need to walk in separation from the church denominations is that in joining with them, we will lose our power as a witness to the truth of the assembly. In the case of the prophet who was told by the Lord not to eat bread with the old prophet in Bethel, by his disobeying the Word of the Lord, a lion slew him, and that ended his history as a witness for the Lord.
The Lord said to Jeremiah, “If thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as My mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them” (Jer. 15:19). The point we are to see here is that if Jeremiah remained separated from the corruption in Judah, He would continue to be used as the Lord’s “mouth.” If he returned and joined in fellowship with the people who were going in the wrong direction, he would lose his power in testimony. Similarly, if we remain in the ecclesiastical position to which we have separated as gathered to the Lord's name, we can and will be used to bear a witness to the truth amidst the confusion in Christendom, and in a sense, be as the Lord’s “mouth.” We will be “a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet [fit] for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work” (2 Tim. 2:21). Those who remain in the confusion in the church systems can be used by the Lord for some works, but not for “every good work,” as this verse says. For instance, they could surely be used of the Lord to preach the gospel, but they could not be used to teach people the truth of the assembly and its proper order—at least with any kind of power—because if they knew it and taught it, it would condemn the false position they are in. Therefore, if we return to that which we have separated from, we will also lose our power in testimony.
4) We Are Associating the Lord’s Table With the Unscriptural Order in the Churches
A fourth reason why those gathered to the Lord’s name must be careful about having fellowship with the churches in denominational Christianity is that in attending their services we will associate the Lord’s table with that unscriptural order. The Apostle Paul speaks of this principle in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22. He shows that whether in Christianity, Judaism, or paganism, there is a principle of identification. In each case, partaking in a particular religious order of things is the expression of one’s fellowship with all that exists there.
In regard to Christianity, Paul said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not fellowship with the blood of Christ? The loaf which we break, is it not fellowship with the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16 – W. Kelly’s Trans.) Our act of breaking bread (partaking of the Lord’s supper) is the expression of our fellowship with those with whom we break bread. In regard to Israel, the same principle existed. He said, “See Israel according to the flesh: are not they that eat the sacrifices in fellowship with the altar?” (1 Cor. 10:18 – W. Kelly Trans.) The person who partook of the sacrifices on the Jewish altar was identified with all that that altar stood for. He also showed that the same principle holds true with the idolatry in paganism. He said, “The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils [demons] and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils [demons]” (1 Cor. 10:20). In this case those who partook of the “cup of demons” were in fellowship with the demons behind the idols.
Paul’s point here is clear: our act of partaking in a particular religious fellowship—Jewish, Pagan, or Christian—identifies us with all that goes on there. This principle applies to the tables of men in denominational church order. If we partake with them, and they teach evil doctrine, then we are in fellowship with it. If they are engaged with an unscriptural practice of worship, and we partake with them, we are also in fellowship with it. I know that this is terribly unpopular, but the fact remains that when we associate with any unscriptural order in denominational Christianity—whether we hold what they practice or not—we are still identified with it. And more importantly, if we are breaking bread at the Lord’s Table, by our act of fellowship with the unscriptural order in Christendom, we are associating it with the Lord’s Table. This surely cannot be pleasing to the Lord.
5) There is a Danger of Getting Drawn Away into the Church Denominations
A fifth reason why we need to be careful about our associations with denominational churches is that there is a danger of getting drawn away into them. There is a real possibility of picking up bad doctrine—especially as to ecclesiastical views. The principle I would give for this is, “None of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself” (Rom. 14:7). This shows that we are affected by our surroundings. The erroneous ideas of those with whom we associate in these church groups will rub off on us. It may take some time, but it is a fact. “Evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33). (See also Haggai 2:10-14.) Now you might object to this, saying, “These Christians are not evil!” As far as their personal lives are concerned, this may true, but I am speaking of the principle involved in 1 Corinthians 15:33 only. Scripture abounds with examples that show us that we need to be careful as to our associations, and if we have communication with false principles, we will become affected by them.
Women's Bible Study Groups
Perhaps some of you are asking, “Is there anything wrong with sisters gathered to the Lord’s name going to women’s Bible studies put on by church organizations?” I understand the point here; these functions are often not held in a church building, so technically, you couldn’t say that you were going to a church if you attended one of them.
Surely there is nothing wrong with sisters getting together to read the Word of God and pray; let’s encourage it. But I believe that organized, Christian women’s Bible studies, set up for the purpose of teaching, are not Scriptural. 1 Corinthians 14:35 says, “If they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.” A parachurch organization set up for teaching women is not found in Scripture. This might be difficult for you to grasp, because they are doing something good and right—after all, studying Scripture can’t be wrong! But there is such a thing as doing a right thing in a wrong way—and that’s my point here. This verse I have given you is Scripture. I realize that this may not be popular, but it is the Word of God.
The usual retort to this is, “What if a sister does not have a husband?” However, the word translated “husbands,” here in the KJV, is really broader in reference than just to married men; it refers to men-folk in general. The same word is translated simply as “men” in many places in the New Testament (Acts 1:16, 29, 37; 3:2; 7:2; 9:2; 13:15; 15:7, etc.). I believe that it could be translated as such in this verse. The point Paul is making here is that the sisters can ask the men-folk (the brothers) "at home" in a domestic setting, if they wanted clarification on some point that was taken up in one of the assembly meetings. Again, I understand that this is probably pouring cold water on what some of you want to hear, but it’s what Scripture says, and we are not wiser than the Word of God.
The point that we have been focusing on—that we are affected by our associations—is a real danger. As mentioned, there is a possibility of being drawn away into the church denominations through fellowship with Christians connected with those systems—especially by attending organized functions for the study of the Scriptures. I have been told that in one assembly gathered to the Lord’s name, there were seven sisters who went to an organized women’s Bible study put on by people from the churches; and now, a few years later, only two of them are still gathered. So, let’s not say that fellowship with this kind of a thing doesn't have an effect on a person. Feeding on ministry that has its roots in the camp has the affect of drawing a person into the camp. And there is no ministry in the camp that will lead a person “without the camp”—the Christian’s proper place (Heb. 13:13). I would just hate to see a bunch of our young people get drawn away by something like this. But it wouldn’t be the first time it happened.
Years ago, when I was young and hungry to learn the truth (I trust that I can say that I am still hungry for the truth), we had an ideal situation in our local assembly. There were many well-taught teachers there—Mr. Clark, Mr. Coleman, brother Graham; and then, in a secondary role, there was my father, uncle Stan and my uncle Jim, and brother Keating. All of these men had good libraries of sound ministry, and they taught us much truth in the weekly meetings, for which I am very thankful. When we went to a reading meeting, we just sat there making notes, drinking it all in. Much of what I have today came from those men.
Anyway, in the midst of this, there was a sister in the assembly who went regularly to an organized woman’s Bible study put on by some church denomination in town. When she was asked why, her answer was that she wasn’t getting fed at the meetings! What? How could this be, I thought? Here we were feverishly making notes of the wonderful truth that was coming out from these men, and she wasn’t getting fed! Needless to say, that sister is no longer gathered to the Lord’s name; she is in a church denomination today.
What a pitiful state we must be in! It used to be that those in the church denominations (150 years ago) would come to us to learn the truth; now we have to go to them to get fed! It reminds me of the children of Israel having to go down to the Philistines to get their farm implements sharpened (1 Sam. 13:19-22). I’m not implying that our brethren in the church denominations are ungodly Philistines; I’m just saddened that the gathered saints think that they need to go to those for the truth who should be coming to them for it.
Perhaps the problem is two-fold. It could just be a symptom of a dissatisfied, restless spirit wanting something different. But on the other hand, we need to ask ourselves why someone in our local assembly would want to go to a Bible study in a church. Why does a sister feel that she is not being fed in the assembly meetings? It could be her state, but it could also be that we are not giving the saints much food. We need to think about this. I believe that some of the fault falls on those who have the responsibility of teaching in the assembly. Are we giving them food? Are we teaching the saints the truth? When we come to the meetings, are we just hunting around for something to say to fill out the hour, or are we really giving them something? I’m not trying to find fault with those who teach; I want to be exercised about this myself. But if we haven’t spent time learning the truth ourselves, it won’t just magically come out of thin air when we come to the reading meeting; we need to be diligent during the week in our personal studies to be sure of bringing something to the meetings in the way of food. Then, maybe people would be glad to be at the assembly meetings and will not be looking elsewhere.
Summary:
Someone who is in the position of being gathered to the Lord’s name—in separation from the unscriptural order in the denominational churches—who goes to a church service is inconsistent with the stand he or she has taken because:
It is hypocritical to support something that we protest against.
It is sanctioning something that is clearly not according to God’s Word.
We will lose our power as a witness to the truth of the assembly.
It is linking the Lord’s table with the unscriptural order in the denominations.
It puts a person in a position where he or she could pick up bad doctrine and get drawn away from the Lord’s table.
Chapter Five: How Can We Say That There Is Only One Right Group of Christians?
Question:
How can we say that there is only one group of Christians who are properly gathered on divine ground, and they only have the Lord in their midst, when there are many godly and devoted Christian groups who meet with sincere motives? It sounds extremely bigoted and sectarian.
Answer:
To teach that the Spirit of God has a gathering center on earth today in Christianity—a place where the Lord has put His name and that the Spirit of God is gathering people there—is probably the most hated point in all these questions that people raise. It may sound bigoted and sectarian, but when you weigh what Scripture teaches in regard to the truth of gathering, the only honest conclusion that one arrives at is that there could only be one divinely owned center of gathering on earth.
In order to answer this question properly, we really need to go back and look at some of the basic principles involved in God's order for Christians gathering together for worship and ministry.
God Desires His People to Be One in Testimony
First of all, the Word of God tells us that it is God’s PLAN in Christianity to “gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” (John 11:51-52), and that there would be “one flock” (John 10:16). Before going to the cross, the Lord prayed to that end, saying, “Holy Father, keep through Thine own Name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We are.” And again, “ ... that they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me” (John 17:11, 21). While these verses in John’s gospel do not directly speak of the truth of the oneness of the body of Christ, but rather, of the oneness in the family of God, they clearly show that God’s desire for His people is that they would be found together in a visible unity on earth.
The Lord first revealed His thoughts of a manifested practical unity among His people in the church in Matthew 18:20. It says, “For where two or three are gathered together in [unto] My name, there am I in the midst of them.” He did not want His people to be merely “gathered” where He was in the midst, but to be “gathered together.” Thus, the Lord was indicating that all whom the Spirit of God gathered unto His name, wherever they might be on earth, would be “together” in a visible unity. He did not mean that they should be gathered together in one place geographically (as it was in Judaism—at Jerusalem), but that they would act together in the various localities where the Spirit has gathered them, so as to give a universal expression to the fact that they are one.
Now you might think that I am seeing more in this word “together” than what the Spirit of God intended, and it’s true that if we had only this verse (Matt. 18:20) on the subject of gathering, we might not have grounds to say it. But when we turn to the book of the Acts and to the epistles, and we interpret this Scripture in the light of the whole tenor of the Christian revelation, we can see that the Lord was indicating the truth of the church’s oneness in testimony. It is only hinted at in Matthew 18 because the disciples did not have the Spirit yet, and they wouldn’t be able to take in the truth of it (John 14:25-26; 16:12). The Lord did this on many occasions in His ministry, giving but the seed of a certain truth, and then leaving it to be developed through the apostles when the Spirit came.
As the gospel reached many lands and many were converted, there would naturally be many gatherings spread over the earth, but the Lord intended that they would still be one in fellowship and testimony. This is seen in the Apostle Paul’s remark to the Thessalonians: “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus” (1 Thess. 2:14). The Lord did not intend for His people to be in independent groups, but that there would be one flock—one universal fellowship of saints on earth. This is the fellowship to which all Christians are called (1 Cor. 1:9).
God Has a Ground on Which He Gathers Christians
Secondly, the Scriptures tell us that God has a PLACE—an ecclesiastical ground—on earth, “where” He would have Christians gathered to express the truth that there is one body. This gathering Center is Christ Himself. The same verse I quoted (Matthew 18:20) says, “For where two or three are gathered together in [unto] My name, there am I in the midst of them.” As mentioned, this place of gathering in Christianity is not a literal geographic center, but a spiritual ground involving Scriptural principles having to do with how Christians are to meet together for worship and ministry. Those on that ground are not gathered to principles, but to a Person—the Lord Jesus Christ.
This gathering center is a place of the Lord’s choosing, where He has set His name and where He gathers believers. Note: this verse says, “where”—not “wherever”—as some Christians would like to read it. Many think that this verse is simply saying that whenever and wherever a group of Christians get together—whether it is for a cup of coffee at a local coffee shop, or for some recreational purpose, etc.—they have the collective presence of the Lord with them. Now it is true that when Christians get together for whatever purpose they have in mind, that the Lord’s presence is with them individually, for He said, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20). And, “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Heb. 13:5). But that is not what this verse in Matthew 18:20 is speaking about. There is a difference in Scripture between the Lord’s presence with His people individually, and the Lord’s presence with a company of believers collectively, as gathered in assembly for worship, ministry, and to make binding administrative actions. This latter collective aspect is what Matthew 18 is referring to.
Context is everything in Bible interpretation. If we look at the chapter (Matthew 18), we’ll see that in the verses leading up to verse 20, the Lord was speaking of the assembly in its administrative capacity in making binding actions. The chapter has to do with the authority the local assembly has for such actions, because the Lord Himself is in the midst. The Lord is there in the midst sanctioning the very existence of those gathered by the Spirit unto His name, and also its administrative actions. Having said that, I hasten to say that the Lord’s presence in the midst of those whom He has gathered does not sanction their state—for it may be terribly low—but the ground on which they meet. “Wherever,” makes it a place of our choosing; “where”—which is what Scripture says—makes it a place of His choosing. This is why it is often called, “the place of His appointment.”
Luke 22:7-10 establishes this same point; there is a place on earth (a spiritual ground) “where” God would have believers to gather. The Lord Jesus was about to institute the Lord’s Supper—the breaking of bread (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 11:23-26), and He desired that His disciples would do so in the place of His choosing. Things in Israel at that time were in disarray and there was much corruption—from the chief priests and the elders down to the common people. As a result, the Lord was not recognized as their Messiah. In fact, they were preparing to kill Him! (Luke 22:2) The people went on with keeping the Passover, but they were rejecting Him who was the fulfillment of the Passover. Hence, there were many houses in Jerusalem that night in which the feast was kept, but there was only one room where the Lord was present—the place that He had appointed for His disciples. Similarly, Christendom is in disarray, and as a result, there are many places where Christians meet today, but the Lord is not there in a collective sense to sanction that ground upon which they meet.
Hebrews 13:13 tells us that this place of the Lord’s appointment—where He is in the midst—is “outside the camp.” The “camp” is a word the Spirit of God uses to denote Judaism and all of its Judaistic principles and practices. Christians generally have missed this point and have carried many things connected with Jewish worship into their places of worship. They have ignored the plain teaching of Scripture which says that the tabernacle is a figure of the true sanctuary into which we now have access by the Spirit (Heb. 9:8-9, 23-24). Instead, they have used it as a pattern for their church organizations. They have erected great temples and cathedrals “made with men’s hands” (Acts 17:24-25), borrowing many things from the Old Testament in a literal sense as a pattern for their worship. To a large degree, they have missed the fact that the true Christian ground of gathering and worship is an entirely new way of approaching God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24; Heb. 10:19-20). It is totally outside of Judaistic principles and practices. Anyone looking for this place of the Lord’s appointment would have to look away from all such places in Christendom—whether it is St. Peter’s in Rome, or the smallest evangelical chapel, because those places all have the trappings of Judaism woven into the fabric of their worship services in varying degrees.
First Corinthians 10:21 tells us that there is such a thing as “the Lord’s table.” It is not a literal table that brethren have in their meeting rooms on which they have the emblems for the Lord’s Supper. It is, rather, a symbolic term that denotes this ground upon which the Spirit of God gathers believers unto the name of the Lord Jesus. It is where the unity of the body is exhibited, and where Christ is in the midst. A “table” in Scripture symbolizes fellowship. In the case of the Lord’s table, it symbolizes the true ground of fellowship God has for all Christians, where the Lord’s authority is recognized and bowed to. This is why it is called “the Lord’s” table.
There is a type of this truth of a divine gathering center in Deuteronomy 12, which I alluded to earlier. The Lord had a place in which He gathered His people, Israel. “There shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there” (vs. 11). The children of Israel were to “bring” their offerings and sacrifices there (Deut. 12:5-6), hold their yearly feasts there (Deut. 16:2, 6, 11, 15-16), and have their problems resolved by the priests, Levites, and judges who were there (Deut. 17:8). It is significant, however, that in all of the many references in Deuteronomy to the place of the Lord’s choosing, we are not told where it is. As Israel’s history unfolds in the pages of the Word of God, we learn that it was Jerusalem (Psa. 78:68; 1 Kings 11:13, 32, 36; 12:20; 14:21; 15:4, etc.). It is not mentioned in Deuteronomy because the Lord wanted His people to be exercised about seeking it out when they came into the land. Similarly, in Christianity, none of the passages that we have seen in the New Testament tell us where that place is—it is for each Christian to be exercised about. This is illustrated in Peter and John asking the Lord, “Where wilt Thou that we prepare?” (Luke 22:9).
There is a Divine Gatherer Who Leads Believers to the Place of God’s Appointment
Having established from Scripture that God’s PLAN is to gather together the people of God on one ground, and that He has a PLACE where He would have them to be together, Matthew 18:20 indicates that He has the POWER to do it. There is a divine Gatherer who leads exercised believers to that place of His appointment—the Holy Spirit.
Who else could the Lord entrust with the gathering of His people together unto His name, but the Spirit of God? While the Spirit is not directly mentioned in this passage, it is clear that He is the divine Gatherer. This is seen in the words, “are gathered together.” The Lord did not say, “Where two or three come together” or “meet together,” as some modern translations render it. “Are gathered” is a passive voice, and this points to the fact that there has been a gathering power outside of the people themselves that has been involved in their meeting together on that ground. This shows that the divine ground of gathering is not a voluntary association of believers. It’s true that there should be personal exercise and energy on the part of those who are gathered by the Spirit to be found there at the place where Christ is in the midst, but ultimately, He is the One who gathers.
The truth of the Spirit’s work in Matthew 18:20—depicted in the words “are gathered”—has been hotly contested. Some who are quite ignorant have tried to tell us that it is only brethren of recent years who teach that these words refer to the work of the Holy Spirit, implying that it is a new idea. This simply is not true. Writings from men of the 19 th century—such as, C. H. Mackintosh, F. G. Patterson, J. A. Trench, etc.— have taught that the words, “are gathered,” do indeed refer to the work of the Holy Spirit. Many more from the 20th century have taught the same. For instance, Hamilton Smith said, “To use a simple illustration, I see a basket of fruit on the table. How did it get there? It was gathered together; it did not get there by its own efforts. The word for ‘gathered together’ in the Greek is ‘sunago,’ which literally means ‘to lead together,’ and could be translated, “are guided together”—all of which suggests a Gatherer.”
Some have tried to go into the Greek text to prove that "are gathered" is not a reference to the Spirit's work. However, as H. Smith has shown, the Greek does support it. Strong’s states that the word “sunago” (#4863) means “to lead together” or “to collect.” Vines states that “sunago” means “to gather or bring together” (p. 482).
J. N. Darby said, “He [Christ] is the only centre of gathering. Men may make confederations amongst themselves, having many things for their object or aim, but the communion of saints cannot be known unless each line converges towards the living Centre. The Holy Ghost does not gather saints around mere views, however true they may be, upon that which the church is, upon that which it has been, or that which it may be on earth, but He always gathers them around that blessed Person, who is the same yesterday, to day, and forever. ‘Where two or three are gathered together in [unto] My name, there am I in the midst of them.’”
Luke 22:7-10 supports the fact that there is a divine Gatherer. It says, “When ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water: follow him into the house where he entereth in.” The Spirit of God is seen here in the figure of “a man” bearing a pitcher of water. Many times, in Scripture, the Spirit of God is seen as an unnamed man working behind the scenes. This is because it is not the object of the Spirit of God to draw attention to Himself (John 16:13-14), and it’s the reason why He is not directly mentioned in Matthew 18:20. He does not take a place of prominence in Christianity, but works behind the scenes guiding exercised souls to that Scriptural ground where Christ is in the midst of those thus gathered. In this case, He led the disciples to the place of the Lord’s appointment where they could be with Him for the supper. “Water,” in Scripture, often signifies the Word of God (Eph. 5:26). Thus, we learn that the Spirit of God uses the principles of the Word of God to guide believers to the place of the Lord’s appointment.
The best-intentioned men have sought to gather the Lord’s people together and have made a thorough mess of it. Being ignorant of the truth of gathering in the Scriptures, they have shunted believers into man-made denominational sects and groups and have encouraged them to go to “the church of their choice.” The result is that Christians have been scattered in a thousand directions. This surely is not the work of the Holy Spirit.
The Logical Scriptural Conclusion
Now let’s put these things together and let the Scriptures give us the answer.
Firstly, God desires that all Christians would be together in one practical testimony, even though they may be in many different locations on earth.
Secondly, God has a place and a way—an ecclesiastical position or ground—where He would have Christians express that unity in meeting together for worship and ministry, and for administrative actions.
Thirdly, there is a divine Gatherer (the Spirit of God) who exercises believers about these Scriptural principles of gathering and leads them to that place of the Lord’s appointment.
The only logical conclusion that we can draw from these principles is that the Lord’s presence (in the collective sense of which we have been speaking—Matt. 18:20) could only be in one place. If this is true, then He couldn’t be in every place where Christians gather—even though they may be well meaning. It is quite simple; if the Lord gave His presence to the many places where Christians meet in the way in which we have been speaking, He would be condoning those false positions. The respected Bible teacher, Mr. W. Potter, said, “Suppose the Lord gave His presence now to the different denominations, what would He be doing? He would be sanctioning what is contrary to Him. He can’t do that.” Mr. Potter also said, “You don’t mean to imply that the Lord is not in the midst of any others in the same sense? Decidedly He is not.”
Now this may sound extremely narrow and exclusive, but if you are honestly seeking the truth, you don’t want to argue with the Word of God. Remember, these are not my ideas; it’s the only sober conclusion that Scripture leads us to. If you think that the truth of gathering is too exclusive, let me ask you this: “How many ways are there to get saved?” One. Would you say, “Oh, that’s so exclusive; it’s so narrow; I can't accept that?” No, you wouldn't because you know that it’s the truth. The very nature of Christianity is exclusive; there is only one way to be born again, only one way to be justified, and only one way to be reconciled, etc. All I can say is that you had better get used to the exclusivity of Christianity, because it is, so to speak, "the nature of the beast." The whole Christian revelation of truth is exclusive, and we don’t make apologies for the truth—it is what it is.
Now, if we think that Christians who come together for worship and ministry in their various divisions in Christendom have been led by the Spirit to do so (as stated in Matthew 18:20), then we are really saying that the Spirit of God is the Author of those divisions. If that is so, then He is to blame for the divided state in the Christian testimony! Surely no sober Christian would charge the Spirit of God for creating the sad and divided state of the Church’s public testimony. Hamilton Smith said, “Is the Holy Spirit gathering all the various divided and independent companies who seek to appropriate this promise [in Matt. 18:20]? Such an assumption necessarily involves placing the blame for the existing deplorable and Christ-dishonouring divisions and independency upon the Holy Spirit. Are these multi-centers seen in the professing Church due to the work of ‘the Spirit of Truth’ who came to glorify Christ? Far be the thought!”
Someone might say, “But you’re teaching that there is only one right group of Christians, and all the others are wrong. It sounds like you think that you’re the only right ones!” But wait a minute; I didn’t say that. I’m saying that Scripture teaches that there is a divine ground of gathering—only one ecclesiastical position on earth that the Lord sanctions with His presence. I didn’t SAY that those with whom I fellowship are on that ground, though I BELIEVE that the Spirit of God has led us to that place. The truth of gathering is not about the people; it’s about the Lord having a gathering center. There is always a danger of shifting the focus from the Lord in the midst, to the people whom the Spirit of God has gathered there, and then, saying that they have the Lord’s table. This is a mistake; our focus should be on Christ in the midst. Remember, our gathering together is “unto Him” (Heb. 13:13).
God’s way to produce unity among His people has always been to establish a gathering point (center) to which His people would rally.
In Old Testament times the Lord had a place where His presence would be, to which His people were to come (Deut. 12:5-7),
In New Testament (Christian) times He has established a place where He is in the midst (Matt. 18:20; 1 Cor. 5:4), where the Spirit of God gathers believers.
In each dispensation the center is always the Lord Himself. For sake of illustration, suppose there was a giant spoked wheel where the Lord was at the hub of the wheel and each believer was sitting on a spoke out by the rim. In that position each believer would be at some distance from each other and the Lord. But if each person were to slide down the spoke he or she was sitting on toward the hub, the closer they would get to it the closer they would be to one another. So it is in the ways of God; He produces unity among His people by establishing a gathering point to which He gathers His people.
Sad to say, there may be some among the gathered saints who have had somewhat of an arrogant spirit and have given the impression that we are “the only right ones.” This only proves that it’s possible to be in a right position (ecclesiastically), but in a wrong condition (spiritually). As mentioned earlier, pride of position is one of the reasons why the Lord has reduced His people at the divine center numerically (Zeph. 3:10-11). But it doesn’t change the fact that God has a gathering center; it just means that some of those at the center may be in a wrong state, and they could be sifted out.
God would have us to act on our convictions as led by the Lord. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). For myself, I believe that the Lord is in the midst here, but I will not boast of being gathered at God’s center, for it would be wholly out of keeping with the spirit of Christianity. True grace and humility would not put the people forward as being something; those whom the Lord has gathered are nothing in themselves. It’s not presumption or pride to believe the truth and to act on it; it is faith.
Divisions Among Those Who Hold the Truth as to How Christians Should Gather
We might ask, "What about those who have been at the divine center of gathering, but have divided off into another fellowship of meetings? They still meet as we do as far as function is concerned; are they then gathered to the Lord’s name and have His presence in their midst in the collective sense that we have been speaking?"
The short answer is no. Those who go out from the center of gathering in a division could no longer be gathered to the Lord’s name. Even though they might outwardly look the same as those at the center (in the way in which they meet), this in itself is not enough to have the Lord’s sanction. It’s possible to meet according to the Scriptural pattern for Christians, but to do it in self-will. Such a division among God’s people does not have the Lord’s approval any more than a denominational church. In fact, those who would go out from the divine center of gathering and organize a division would be more responsible for their actions than those in the church denominations, because they have had considerably more light. Men may make more than one expression of the truth of the one body by setting up a schismatic table, but the Spirit of God would not lead them to do it. Christ does not have one body in fact, and many bodies in testimony. The Apostle Paul asked, “Is the Christ divided?” (1 Cor. 1:13 – J. N. Darby Trans.) “The Christ” is a term used in Paul’s epistles that denotes the mystical union of Christ and the members of His body. Paul was indicating to the Corinthians that this union cannot be divided in actuality, and it shouldn’t be in testimony—which is what was happening in Corinth.
Therefore, in the light of what Scripture teaches, we do not believe that the Spirit of God would gather Christians into various federations of meetings without those groups being in practical fellowship with each other—even though they outwardly looked the same. If He did, it would be a contradiction of the very truth He is seeking to lead Christians to walk in. W. Potter said, “The Spirit of God doesn’t gather in separate meetings; if He gathers you and me, the next thing is that we are in fellowship one with another.”
At the Ottawa General Meetings (April 1987), the following illustration was given. “If we were to go back to the beginning—to the day of Pentecost—when the Spirit of God came down and united the 120 into one body, and all of them are gathered together to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ; suppose Peter has a quarrel with John, and they decide that they are going to set up separate fellowships. Then there would be a company that would follow Peter and a company that would follow John. Could we say that the Spirit would lead some to go to one, and some to the other? And, that the Lord would be equally approving of both? We do not believe that the Lord would sanction both fellowships with His presence in their midst, for in doing so, He would be condoning practical division in the Church. If He did, He would be the Author of confusion.” J. N. Darby said, “If there will be one such [local assembly], and another is set up by man's will independent of it, the first only is morally in God's sight the assembly of God, and the other is not at all so, because it is set up in independency of the unity of the body.”
Many Christian groups will profess to be gathered to the Lord’s name. Some will even put a sign out front of their meeting place proclaiming that they are the saints whom the Lord has gathered. But does this mean that they are? Mr. Potter said, “People say, ‘We are gathered to the Lord’s name.’ Let us see if you are. How came you to be gathered to the Lord’s name?” If you put schismatic groups among so-called “brethren” to the test, you’ll find that there is a reason why they are where they are. Mr. Potter said, “If there are dozens of gatherings [in a city], we must go back to the origin of the meeting.” He said, “What is the origin of such and such a meeting? Why are they meeting in separation from others? Is their position a scriptural one?”
We have noticed that each divergent group that leaves the gathered saints in a division discards the truth of there being a divine gathering center; they have had to do so in order to justify their divergent position. As an example, when Samuel Ridout (who went out in a division) was asked why the brethren he was with supported Grant in that division, he said, “In 1884 many of us, before the division, had the common thought that WE had the Table exclusively, and must not allow it to lapse a single day. This we think had something to do with the haste of breaking bread, without intermission, at Craig Street, Montreal.” A few months later, he wrote another letter on what he believed constituted and characterized the Lord’s Table—saying that “no one company can claim the exclusive possession of it.” Here, Mr. Ridout admits that they used to hold the truth of the one Lord’s Table but have since given it up. Notice also: Mr. Ridout said, “The common thought ... ” He unabashedly admits that the truth of the one gathering center was commonly held among brethren. He mistakenly thinks that brethren in general (himself included) were wrong in their belief of the one Lord's Table, and it wasn’t until he and his party went out in division that they learned the truth!
And again, a quotation from a Grant publication (“The Gleaner”) in 1914 says, “But perhaps the biggest item on the credit side of our ledger, if one may be permitted to compare, when all is so precious and vital, is the truth that no company of Christians, not even ourselves, can claim a monopoly of the Lord’s Table, or of gathering in the Name of the Lord. Had this truth been known thirty years ago, perhaps division might have been averted.” Here again we have an acknowledgement of individuals once holding the truth of the one gathering center but having given it up. Having abandoned the truth of the one gathering center, they call the error that they have adopted a great “truth.”
Napoleon Noel (after going out in division) states in his book (“The History of the Brethren,” vol. 2, p. 658), “No company of Christians can have exclusive possession of the Lord’s Table, any more than they can claim exclusive possession of the Lord Himself. Such a claim is plain bigotry.” Many such quotes could be added here, but it would be redundant.
As a case in point, let us ask, “Can you find a person among those who divided off in the Perth division (1992) who holds that there is one divine gathering center on earth, and that the Lord’s Table could only be in that one place?” Apart from the Raven fellowship—which holds blasphemous doctrines—I don’t think that there is a division among brethren that holds that there is a divine gathering center. It comes down to this simple fact—there cannot be two (or more) Lord’s tables. There cannot be two (or more) fellowships of Christians on the earth that the Lord identifies with as being on the divine ground of gathering, even though they may outwardly meet in a similar way. If He did, He would be condoning division in the public testimony of the Church.
For those who have been gathered to His Name, there is always a danger of being led away from that ground by the enemy; and when this happens, those who leave are usually the bitterest opponents of the truth of gathering. Prior to his death, J. N. Darby detected a general eroding of the holding of the truth of the one gathering center among brethren, and said, “The great part of the collective conflict is with the wilful misunderstanding of the truth of Christ as the one gathering center. No one is a more bitter opponent of this truth than the one who knows it but doesn’t walk in it.”
The Truth of the One Place is Not a New Doctrine
These things regarding the one gathering center are not new ideas that have come out recently (as some would like to say). I have purposely quoted from brethren of other generations to show that these things are not new. Brother Potter lived in the last century and in the century before that! So did Hamilton Smith. J. N. Darby lived before them. These things are what brethren gathered to the Lord’s name have held and practiced for over 150 years.
H. A. Ironside notes in his book ("A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement") that before the Bethesda division—i.e. in the late 1830s and early 1840s—the brethren "were not backward in claiming in some instances the exclusive possession of the Lord's Table." Like S. Ridout, Mr. Ironside repudiates it, but nevertheless, this shows that the Brethren held this truth pretty much from the beginning—from the earliest days when the truth was recovered. There is simply no truth to the idea that it was invented recently.
If we are not comfortable with these principles on which the “gathered saints” meet, we need to ask ourselves why we are with them. Please don’t misunderstand me, we’re not trying to send anyone away; we’re just stating the fact that some are terribly inconsistent to have taken a position with the gathered saints, and yet, they do not believe the truth of the Spirit’s work of gathering to the one Center—Christ Himself.
God’s Center of Gathering on Earth Today
So then, is there a divine center of gathering for Christians on earth? Yes, Scripture teaches that there is. Where is it then? Now that is for you to search out. The answer as to who has the Lord’s table is—the Lord! It is His table, and He is leading exercised believers to it. God wants us to be exercised about it and to seek the Lord’s mind for guidance, just as Peter and John asked Him “where” that place was in their day (Luke 22:9). “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter” (Prov. 25:2).
Summary:
If God has a gathering center on earth, then it could only be in one place—in one ecclesiastical position. If the Lord were in the midst of all Christian groups, sanctioning their position in a collective sense (Matt. 18:20), then He would be the Author of the many sad divisions in the Church’s public testimony. This is something that He would not do, for it would be a denial of the truth that there is one divine center of gathering—Christ Himself.
Chapter Six: How Can the Lord be in the Midst When There are Many Things That are Wrong?
Question:
How can this be the right place when there are all kinds of things going on that are not right? There are strifes, divisions, worldliness, etc. If the Lord were truly in the midst, He wouldn’t allow these things to happen.
Answer:
The problem here is that we have made the tolerance of evil in an assembly the criterion for judging whether it is gathered on the right ground or not. Again, we can understand how a person might come to this conclusion: you would naturally think that if the Lord were truly in the midst of a certain company of Christians, there wouldn’t be any trouble. He wouldn’t allow it to go on, because if He did, then He would be condoning it—which is something He wouldn’t do.
Well, we are not the first to raise this question. Long ago, Gideon asked, “Oh my Lord, if the LORD be with us, why then is all this befallen us?” (Judges 6:13) This conundrum results from having a false premise. The truth is that the Lord is in the midst of the “gathered saints” to sanction that ecclesiastical ground, but it does not equate to Him condoning their state. Scripture distinguishes between these two things, and we need to do so as well. If we see them as one and the same thing, we’ll come away with some mistaken conclusions. This is true in personal life and also in assembly life. For instance, as believers, the Lord is with us at all times in an individual sense (Matt. 28:20; Heb. 13:5), but we can’t conclude from that, that He condones everything that we do. And, of course, it’s the same with the assembly.
This is illustrated in Malachi. As you know, Malachi had the solemn duty of delivering God’s last message to His earthly people—the Jews—before the Lord came. The people in Malachi’s day were in a right position, but in a wrong condition. Having returned from Babylon to the divine center of that day—Jerusalem—they were at the right place. Since this was so, they had the Lord’s presence “with” them (Hagg. 2:4-5). But they were in a wrong state, and therefore, Malachi was sent to exercise the people about this. We might wonder how the Lord could dwell among them when there were all kinds of wrong things going on, but it’s because the Lord’s presence with His people (collectively) does not equate to Him approving of their state.
In the New Testament, we see the same thing. The state in the assembly at Corinth was deplorably low. There were all kinds of things going on that were wicked—division, fornication, bad doctrine, and other things that struck at the foundations of the faith. Yet when the Apostle Paul wrote to them, he addressed them as “the assembly of God.” They were still recognized as an assembly that was—as far as divine ground is concerned—“of God.” It was owned of God as being such. In chapter 5, he states that when they were “gathered together,” it was “with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ.” According to Matthew 18:18-20, this power, or authority, is only consequent upon the Lord being in the midst. Hence, not only was that assembly still owned of God, but the Lord was there in their midst. Note: it doesn’t say “Where two or three, going on well in a good state, are gathered ... there am I in the midst.” Such a condition is not put on it.
Again, we might wonder how it could be that the Lord would still identify Himself with an assembly that had gone so far wrong. It is not that the Lord condoned the evil in Corinth; He would not have borne with it indefinitely—for then, it would have given a wrong message to the world. But at the point of Paul’s writing the epistle, the Lord was giving space for repentance. Sooner or later, the Apostle would have to come on the Lord’s behalf and deal in judgment with that assembly if they didn’t set those things right (1 Cor. 4:21; 2 Cor. 1:23). As you know, the warning in the first epistle was received, and the saints at Corinth were repentant, and they corrected those things that were wanting (2 Cor. 7:6-16). This shows that the Lord does not remove the candlestick in a place quickly, but rather, gives space for repentance when things are wrong (Rev. 2:21). It is interesting to note that in Revelation 2:5, the word “quickly” (as found in the KJV) is not in the original Greek text. It should simply read, “I am coming to thee, and I will remove thy lamp out of its place, except thou shalt repent.”
Out of the false premise that the Lord could not be in the midst of an assembly that has things in it that are wrong, comes the idea that we should leave it because it is in such a state. The reasoning is that if the Lord is not there, then we shouldn’t be either, because you wouldn’t want to be in a place where the Lord is not in the midst. Some who have wanted to leave the assembly anyway have used this false premise as a convenient excuse to make a quick exit. The old cry is, “There is evil there, and the Lord surely wouldn’t want me to be in fellowship with evil!”
The mistake here is that we imagine that there is a certain degree of trouble and evil that can be tolerated in an assembly; and if that line is crossed, somehow, that assembly mystically loses its status as being on divine ground. Since everyone has a different idea as to what that degree is, each is left to his own discretion to decide as to when he thinks an assembly is no longer truly gathered to the Lord’s name. This reminds us of the days when the judges ruled. At the end of that book it says, “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Sad to say, this sort of thing leads to confusion.
It has been often asked, “When should a person leave an assembly?” It is simply this: you leave when the Lord leaves. But when is that? In the apostles’ day, it would have been when the assembly wilfully refused to correct matters within it, and an apostle dealt with it in an apostolic judgment as acting for the Lord (1 Cor. 4:21; 2 Cor. 1:23). Today, it would be when another assembly gathered to the Lord’s name—after much remonstrance and longsuffering—officially disowns it as an assembly on divine ground. This would be a binding decision made in the name of the Lord (Matt. 18:18-20).
If we think that we have to leave an assembly because of certain things going on there, when it has not been formally disowned by another assembly gathered to the Lord’s name, we are going ahead of the Lord. Really, we are as much as saying that we are more holy than the Lord Himself. If He can still be in the midst of an erring assembly (albeit grieved because of its state), we can still be there too.
What we can do until the problem is rectified, or the assembly is disowned, is to “mourn” over the low state of the assembly. It may be that the Lord will come in in a governmental action and deal with the problem or persons at fault (1 Cor. 5:1-2). But Scripture does not indicate that we are to leave an assembly because it is in a low state. W. Potter said, “Suppose this gathering got into a terrible state. The thing to do is to humble ourselves before the Lord, but not to get out of it.” He also said, “If the Spirit of God has gathered us to the Lord’s name, we dare not leave that position until we have the Word of God for it.”
The third epistle of John gives us light in this connection. Conditions in the local assembly where Gaius lived were terrible—to say the least. An elder in the assembly (Diotrephes) had departed from his role of leading, caring, and shepherding the flock, and had commandeered the control of the assembly and ruled over it in a fleshly way. He was a power-mad elder gone awry. The result was that many persons were hurt by his brutish and self-seeking ways (compare Jeremiah 10:21). The six evils of Diotrephes were:
He loved the preeminence, having single-handedly taken control of the assembly.
He suppressed a letter from the Apostle John to the assembly.
He unjustly accused the apostles with malicious words.
He refused to receive those who had gone forth labouring in the Word and doctrine.
He hindered those who did receive labourers.
He excommunicated people unjustly.
We can ask, “In such conditions, what can the righteous do?” (Psa. 11:3) You will notice that there are two things that are conspicuous by their absence in the epistle: firstly, the Apostle John does not tell Gaius to leave the assembly because of the terrible things that were going on there. John didn’t say to him, “Gaius, you don’t have to put up with that; just pack your bags and leave.” No, that was not an option. Secondly, John did not tell Gaius to get Demetrius and some of the other brethren there, and put that man out of fellowship (excommunication). It is not that that wasn’t what should have been done—it would have been the right thing to do. But this epistle views things in an assembly when conditions have gotten so low that there is no power left to deal with evil. (Being a “third” epistle, it presents conditions that have grown out of what is found in the “second” epistles.) It would be no use trying to fight Diotrephes, because those who did would end up out of fellowship themselves! He had the upper hand in the assembly and would put any resisting persons out. So, trying to excommunicate him was really not something that the assembly had the power to do.
When things have gotten to this point in an assembly, this epistle shows us that there is still a recourse—the Lord Himself. As Head of the Church, in that day He could send an apostle to deal with the problem. This is seen in the words of John, “If I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth” (vss. 10, 14). John planned to come to that assembly and deal with Diotrephes in an apostolic judgment. It would be a divine intervention because his actions as an apostle were really an extension of the Lord’s authority. Today, there is no apostle on earth to intervene on the Lord’s behalf in this way, but the Lord can still intervene governmentally—in a providential way—in difficult assembly situations. John’s coming perhaps would represent that reality in our day. Like Gaius, and any other exercised saints in that assembly, we are to wait for the Lord to act in His time.
In the meantime, John told Gaius to “imitate ... what is good” and not to fall in with Diotrephes’ evil. It seems that John anticipated Gaius asking how that could be done in such a difficult situation that existed in this assembly, so John pointed to Demetrius. He as much as said, “He is your example.” He said, “Demetrius hath a good report of all [men], and of the truth itself.” This is quite amazing. “All” would include Diotrephes! It means that Demetrius lived in such a way that he had a good report with Diotrephes. Yet John adds, “And of the truth itself.” This indicates that Demetrius hadn’t compromised any of the truth. It means that he had found a way to go on in the presence of Diotrephes, and still live in a way that would please the Lord. This shows us that there is a way to go on, even in the most difficult circumstances in an assembly. The answer is not to leave.
Summary:
The presence of trouble or evil in an assembly doesn’t mean that that assembly is not on divine ground, but rather, that it is in a low state. If an assembly continues in an evil course, it would eventually be formally disowned and no longer gathered to the Lord’s name. Until that time, the Lord is still in its midst, though most surely grieved over its poor state. It is our place to remain there until the Lord intervenes to set it right, or until that assembly has been formally set aside.
Chapter Seven: How Can Something Be an Assembly Decision When Many Don't Agree With It?
Question:
How can something be considered an “assembly decision” when many in the assembly do not agree with it?
Answer:
Perhaps I should make a few comments as to how an “assembly decision” is formulated, before I answer this question.
When problems arise and an administrative judgment or action needs to be taken in a case that comes before the assembly, the responsible brothers meet apart from the assembly to get an understanding of the facts and to look into the Scriptures to determine what the assembly must do. This principle is seen in Acts 15. While what transpired in Acts 15 was not exactly a local “care” meeting, as we know it—as it was a gathering of brothers from a number of different localities—it does establish the principle that matters can be looked into by the responsible brothers apart from the assembly as a whole. It says, “The apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter” (Acts 15:6). Note: the sisters, younger brethren, and new converts are not mentioned as being there. Things should not be hashed out before the whole assembly because there may be some disputing (Acts 15:7) which would not be orderly for a public forum. Also, some things might be addressed that could be defiling and would not be appropriate in such a setting (1 Cor. 14:40).
The Lord’s normal means of guiding the local assembly in a Scriptural course and in its administrative responsibilities is through those who “take the lead” (1 Thess. 5:12-13; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24; 1 Cor. 16:15-18; 1 Tim. 5:17 – J. N. Darby Trans.). Taking the lead in this capacity does not refer to leading in public teaching or preaching, but to the administrative affairs of the assembly. To confuse these two things is to misunderstand the difference between gift and office. Some of those who “take the lead” may not teach publicly at all, but it is very good and helpful when they can (1 Tim. 5:17). These men should know the principles of the Word of God and be able to lay them out so that the assembly might understand the course of action that God would have it to take in a particular matter (Tit. 1:9). These men do not appoint themselves to this role, but are raised up of the Holy Spirit for this work (Acts 20:28). They will be known by the assembly as having addicted themselves to the care of the saints, and by their knowledge of principles, and whose experience and judgment has been proved to be sound.
There are three words used in the epistles to describe these responsible leaders in the local assembly.
Firstly, “elders” (Presbuteroi), refers to those advanced in age: it implies maturity and experience. However, not all aged men in the assembly necessarily function in the role of leaders (1 Tim. 5:1; Tit. 2:1-2).
Secondly, “bishops [overseers]” (Episkopoi), refers to the work that they do: shepherding the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2), watching over souls (Heb. 13:17), and giving admonition (1 Thess. 5:12).
Thirdly, they are called “guides [leaders]” (Hegoumenos); this refers to their spiritual capacity to lead the saints.
In the book of Revelation those in this role are referred to as “stars” and also as “the angel of the [local] church” (Rev. 1-3). As “stars” they are to bear witness to the truth of God (the principles of His Word) as light bearers in the local assembly, providing light on various subjects that it might be confronted with. This is illustrated in Acts 15. While it is not exactly to do with binding and loosing, we do learn valuable principles of administrative function in the church. After hearing of the problem that was troubling the assembly, Peter and James gave spiritual light on the matter. James applied a principle from the Word of God and gave his judgment as to what he believed the Lord would have them to do (Acts 15:15-21). As “the angel of the church,” those in this role are to act as messengers to carry out the mind of God in the assembly in the performance of the thing. This is also illustrated in Acts 15:23-29.
When these brothers feel that they have discerned the mind of the Lord from the Scriptures, as to what the assembly should do in a particular case before them, then they bring the facts (not necessarily the details, for they could be defiling) and the Scriptural conclusions before the assembly so that the conscience of all can be engaged in the matter (Acts 15:22). Then it becomes a ratified, binding decision (Matt. 18:18-20). It is called an “assembly decision” because it is made in assembly—that is, when the assembly is together as such, with the Lord in the midst (1 Cor. 5:4)—not because all in the assembly agree.
It has been asked, “Who decides what should be done in a particular case that comes before the assembly?” Our answer is—the Lord. He is the Head of the Church and the assembly is to take its direction from Him (Col. 2:18). The responsible brothers may have to look into a matter to get the facts, but once they are ascertained, the Word of God decides what should be done.
Some have the idea that the brothers are to simply formulate a proposal to the assembly, and when they bring it to the assembly, the assembly as a whole then decides. This is democracy, and assembly actions are not carried out by democratic principles. The brothers who "take the lead" are responsible to see to it that the assembly is guided in a Scriptural course of action, regardless of whether all in the assembly agree or not. If it were not so, then the older, responsible brothers (who understand the principles and know what should be done) could have their godly Scriptural judgment forestalled by the sisters and the novices, or partisans of the offender that is being judged. This means that a Scriptural judgment would become subject to those that have little experience, or intelligence, or perhaps bias in assembly matters. Surely this could not be right. Some seem to have the idea that the brethren cannot act until they get the “OK” from these persons, but this equates to the people controlling their leaders and is the root principle of democracy. Many have stumbled over this very thing when the elders have sought to carry out a Scriptural judgment, and some have disagreed with the action.
This does not mean that the elders make the administrative decisions in the assembly, and the rest of the saints have no input. It is possible that younger brethren may have the mind of the Lord in a matter when the older brethren have perhaps missed it (Job 32-33). In such a case, the older brethren should be glad to accept light on a matter that they may have overlooked. But in normal assembly life, the older, experienced brethren who understand the principles involved are the ones who have the moral weight in these assembly matters.
Nothing can be officially decided apart from the assembly having an opportunity to have its conscience engaged in the matter, and this is why the elders are to seek to reach the conscience of all in the assembly by bringing it before them (Acts 15:22). The leading brethren should be sensitive to any legitimate objection that ones in the assembly may have. But in the end, they are ultimately responsible, as “the angel” of the church, to act for the glory of God (Rev. 2-3). But it is not a binding decision of the assembly until it is done in the assembly, in what is sometimes called a meeting for discipline (Matt. 18:19-20; 1 Cor. 5:4).
In formulating assembly decisions, the responsible leaders should seek to get the conscience of all in the local assembly so that all might be exercised in the matter; however, the assembly may not follow the conscience of some. As mentioned, this is because they may be young in the faith and their consciences may not be sufficiently enlightened in Scriptural principles to be able to form an accurate judgment; they might be worldly and don’t have the spiritual discernment, or they might be biased in the matter. In either case, their judgment must be disregarded. Scripture does not demand that there must be a satisfying of all in the assembly before it can be a bonafide decision.
In these last days, when the will of man is increasingly evident in asserting itself in the church, we cannot expect to get unanimity in assembly judgments. This was the case in the judgment at Corinth. Second Corinthians 2:5 says, “If any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part...all of you” (quoted without the parenthesis as in J. N. Darby Trans.). Apparently, not all in the assembly at Corinth were grieved about the sin in their midst. Although this was the case, the assembly still carried out the action for the glory of God.
In dealing with a heretical situation, you would rarely—if ever—get the approval of the one whom the assembly judgment is against. Furthermore, family members and supporters may object, so there is usually not going to be unanimity. J. N. Darby said, “Unanimity is nonsense, a denial of the power and operation of the Spirit, and clean contrary to the Word of God. First, it is nonsense; because till the case is decided, the person charged is one of the assembly, and you are not going to make him agree as led of the Spirit in judging his own case.”
Occasionally, actions have been taken by the assembly when a few brothers were not at the local care meeting, or at the assembly meeting where the action was taken. This has led some to think that it could not be a bonafide assembly decision ratified in heaven. They cry, “But all the brothers weren’t there to decide!” This again is a democratic idea. The assembly, acting in its administrative capacity without all present, is not uncommon in Scripture. We see the principle of it in 1 Corinthians 15:5, in connection with the office of apostleship. It says, “He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.” When we compare this with Luke 24:34-48 and John 20:19-24, we find that there were only ten of the apostles present when the Lord appeared to them—yet they are called “the twelve!” Judas had hung himself, and Thomas was not there. According to Acts 1, Matthias was not yet part of “the twelve.” His election didn't happen until after the Lord had completed all of His resurrection appearances (in 40 days) and had ascended into heaven. Yet those assembled are still called “the twelve.” We see from this that “the twelve” is a term used to designate the administrative office that they held and the authority that they had to act as such. In the Corinthian epistles, where assembly function and order are unfolded, it is consistent that this principle would be taught there. It is also noteworthy that the Lord's appearances to the women are not given in 1 Corinthians 15, because assembly administration is committed to the responsible brothers. This shows that the assembly acting in its administrative capacity does not need all present before its actions are bound.
The assembly is not a democratic institution that reaches its decisions by a majority vote, with every person having an equal say in matters. We once heard a younger brother say, “I’ve got just as much of a say around here as he does”—referring to a grave and godly older brother who had addicted himself to the care of the assembly for 50 years. We had to tell him that that was simply not true. There is such a thing as moral weight, and this is gained by years of faithfully walking with the Lord and caring for the saints. Those in the place of leading and guiding the assembly carry the bulk of the weight in the assembly in its administrative affairs. For instance, there could be a case where six or seven younger brethren want to do a particular thing, but three or four grave, older brethren feel otherwise. Since the older brethren’s judgment is to be respected—carrying the moral weight in the assembly—the Lord expects the younger brethren to acquiesce in their judgment in the matter, if it differs. They should be glad to follow the spiritual lead of their older brethren.
Summary:
The short answer as to all not agreeing in an assembly action is that the assembly is not a democracy, and unanimity is not necessary in making a binding assembly decision. Those who take the lead carry the bulk of the weight in the assembly’s administrative actions. They are responsible to see to it that the assembly moves on Scriptural lines, whether all agree with a particular decision or not.
Chapter Eight: What Should Be Done When There Is a Wrong Decision?
Question:
What should I do if an assembly makes an unrighteous and wrong decision?
Before we try to answer this question, we should be very careful in calling certain assembly decisions that have been made, wrong or evil. It may be that brethren have acted on Scriptural principles in some matter and that we are ignorant of these principles. We imagine that they are wrong, but it’s we who are wrong.
On the other hand, it is possible that things may have been handled wrongly and an erroneous decision may have been made in an assembly. Assuming that this is the premise of the question, we will try to answer it accordingly.
Answer:
If such a thing were to occur—that an assembly made an unrighteous decision—there is recourse.
Firstly, we can take the matter in prayer directly to the Lord; He is the Head of the church. He can exercise the consciences of those in that locality to the end that they will set the action right.
Secondly, the Lord can raise up prophets in the assembly locally or send some from other assemblies to arouse the conscience of that assembly so that the erroneous decision might be rectified (2 Cor. 2:4; Rev. 2:13; 2 Chron. 24:19-22; Judges 9:5-21).
Thirdly, if that local assembly refuses to deal with its wrongs after it has been shown to them conclusively from the Word of God, it may be disowned by the binding action of another assembly acting on behalf of the body at large. They would simply make a formal statement that the assembly in error is no longer on the true ground of the church of God. This responsibility is alluded to in the Lord’s addresses to the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 2-3). He held “the angel” (the responsible leaders) of each assembly accountable for all the wrongs allowed in that local assembly. But each address closes with the words, “What the Spirit saith to the churches” (plural). This shows that although each assembly is responsible to deal with evil in its midst, there is a corporate responsibility on the part of the other assemblies in the matter, if the local assembly does not deal with it. The Lord does not speak, in that passage, as to how this is to be undertaken, but simply that there is a corporate responsibility on the part of the other assemblies.
This principle is enlarged upon in type in Deuteronomy 13. If evil was found in a person in a city in the land, the city wherein he lived was to “stone” him to death (vss. 6-11). Stoning speaks of the conscience of all in a local assembly being engaged in the judgment of a wicked person in its midst. And, if a city is found to have evil in it that it won’t judge, then the other cites in the land were to act for God’s glory by judging that city. It was to be destroyed and made a heap forever (vss. 12-18). This shows that there was a collective responsibility on the part of all the cities in Israel to put away evil in the land. Typically, it speaks of an assembly that is proved to be unrighteous being disowned by the other assemblies in fellowship with it, as being no longer gathered on the true ground of the church.
As mentioned earlier, the removing of a candlestick in a locality is something the Lord does not do quickly. It is only after much remonstrance and space given it for repentance that the Lord will raise up another assembly to disown that assembly in the wrong. Then, of course, the erroneous action that that disowned assembly has bound would no longer stand. In the interim, until an assembly comes in and acts for God’s glory in the matter (in disowning the unrighteous assembly in question), we are to bow to the action and to wait on God. We mention this to show that there is recourse against the abuse of authority in administrative affairs.
Let us note that Scripture never instructs us to take matters into our own hands, as individuals, and act to independently in what seems to be a wrong assembly action; such a thing is not “endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). Independent action of individuals in such collective matters is always decried in the Scriptures (Deut. 17:12; Num. 15:30-31). It only opens the door for the enemy to divide and scatter the flock. There is a divinely appointed way in which such problems are to be dealt with; we must follow it if order is to be maintained.
Unfortunately, this is where many Christians get into error; they think that they can’t submit to something they believe is unrighteous and not according to Scripture. They think that they will be compromising a good conscience. Some will say, “I have to obey the Lord first, not the brethren!” But this is a façade; if the Lord can stand by the decision until it is rectified, why can’t we? An assembly that makes an error in its administrative responsibilities still has the Lord in its midst until it is formally disowned. J. N. Darby said, “Why speak of obeying the Lord first, then the church? But supposing that the Lord is in the church? It is merely setting up private judgment against the judgment of the assembly meeting in Christ’s Name with His promise (if they are not, I have nothing to say to them); it is simply saying, ‘I count myself wiser than those who are.’ I reject entirely as unscriptural the saying, ‘First Christ, then the Church.’” On this same subject he also said, “The question, therefore, is a mere and poor sophistry which betrays the desire to have the will free, and a confidence that the person’s judgment is superior to all that has been already judged.”
It is important to understand that the assembly has been vouchsafed with the Lord’s authority to act in His Name in the time of His absence, and its acts are to be submitted to as the final authority. In Matthew 18:18-20, in dealing with a certain matter, the Lord said, “Tell it to the assembly.” Then, He went on to speak of its authority to act in His name, saying, “Verily 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.” An example of the assembly binding is found in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; an example of the assembly loosing is found in 2 Corinthians 2:6-11.
However, because the assembly has been given authority to act for God’s glory does not mean that its acts are infallible. J. N. Darby has written a helpful article on this subject entitled, “Confounding Authority with Infallibility.” He shows that it’s possible that an assembly may bind something that is in error, and it is bound in heaven—at least until the action can be rectified. Many people have been confused on this point. They can’t understand how an action that is wrong could be “bound in heaven.” However, “bound in heaven” does not necessarily mean that it is approved by heaven. It simply means that heaven recognizes it. Heaven may not be happy with a decision the assembly makes—yet it stands by it. The assembly has been vested with the Lord’s authority to act for Him representatively in His absence; it is an extension of His authority on earth. And, it is possible for the assembly to use His authority wrongly—nevertheless, it’s still His authority.
We can well understand this principle within a household. In Mr. Darby’s article on “Confounding Authority with Infallibility” he makes mention of the fact that parents have a divinely given authority in their household, yet they are not infallible. Acquiescence is the duty of all in the household. A father might discipline a child mistakenly, but it still stands, and the duty of all in the household is to acquiesce. This is the way order in the household is maintained. When it comes to light that he has made a mistake, under normal conditions, he will correct his mistake with humble apologies and make the necessary amends. Also, in the case of a police magistrate: he has authority to arrest someone, but since he is not infallible, it is possible that he could make a mistake. Nevertheless, his action still stands, and the individual has no choice but to accept it until it is shown to be wrong. If the civil authorities were not run that way, there would be no order in government at all. Mr. Darby also said, “In a hundred instances obedience may be obligatory where there is no infallibility. Were it not so, as you can easily see, there could be no order in the world at all. ... If there be no obedience where there is not infallibility, no acquiescence in what has been decided, there is no end to self-will and no existence of common order.” Similarly, in assembly decisions, heaven may not be pleased with something that the assembly binds in error, yet heaven stands by it for the time being. In this way, order is maintained in the house of God.
It should solemnize us greatly when we think that we could use the Lord’s authority and mistakenly identify heaven with something that is not right; and thus, incur the Lord’s governmental judgment. This is the very reason the Lord has outwardly dissociated Himself from the mass of the Christian profession and has taken up with a remnant testimony. And if those identified with that remnant testimony should carry on in a poor state and fail in their responsibility, He will bring His hand on them in governmental judgment, and reduce their numbers by sifting and scattering some, that they may be humbled. Sad to say, this has happened.
Mr. W. Potter has written a short paper on assembly actions of binding and loosing, wherein he says that the “whatsoever” in Matthew 18:19 is an unconditional whatsoever. The assembly may enact a binding decision on, or against, whatever it feels is necessary for the Lord’s glory. Some imagine that this is akin to Popery and is giving the assembly undisputed authority. Such will argue that if “whatsoever” is unconditional, then the assembly could bind anything that it wanted to, and it would be automatically bound in heaven. In their minds it would be making heaven subject to the actions of the church on earth; and should the assembly make a mistake, then heaven would be in fellowship with the wrong. This assumption, however, is not true; we have already shown that the Lord is still in the midst of an erring assembly that has evil in it, until it is rectified or formally disowned.
Many have been sadly misled through the mistaken idea that unless an assembly action bears the hallmark of God’s Word, it is not ratified in heaven and binds no one on earth. In other words, the decision is only a binding action when it is a right decision. What they are really saying—though they may not realize it—is that all of the assembly’s true decisions are infallible. When the assembly acts administratively in making a binding decision, it is never wrong! The very ones who accuse the brethren of Popery are really those who hold to the principle of infallibility! Mr. Darby’s article shows that this mistaken idea is confounding authority with infallibility.
On the surface of this argument, it seems logical not to submit to an unrighteous decision, but behind this idea is the enemy’s attempt to bring confusion into the assembly, and to undermine its authority and its actions. All anyone has to do is declare that an action of the assembly is an unrighteous action, and conclude that heaven, therefore, has not bound it. And if heaven hasn’t accepted it, then they should reject it too. It is a convenient way to set aside assembly actions that we don’t like. If the assembly’s administrative acts were only to be submitted to under the condition that they are righteous acts, then all order would soon be lost. This erroneous idea makes assembly judgments subject to our private judgment. Then, the assembly is no longer the highest court of authority in these matters—our personal judgment is! The result is that everyone is left to do “that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). However, Mr. Darby said, “A judgment of an assembly, even if I thought it a mistake, I should in the first instance accept and act upon it.”
In an effort to negate the force of the “whatsoever” in Matthew 18:18, some have mistakenly assumed that verse 19 is a prayer meeting. Thus, they reason that if the assembly’s prayers are subject to heaven’s qualifying (for God only answers our prayers when they are according to His will), then the “whatsoever” they bind must also be subject to heaven’s qualifying. This is clever, but it is taking verse 19 right out of its context. The verse is not referring to a prayer meeting, but to those gathered to the Lord’s name, assembled as such to act in their administrative responsibilities when enacting a binding decision. It is a meeting for discipline. Paul speaks of this same kind of meeting in 1 Corinthians 5:4-5. If the Lord had been referring to the prayer meeting in Matthew 18:19, then He changed His subject right in the middle of His dissertation on the assembly’s administrative actions. Then afterwards, He switched back to the subject having to do with the Lord being in the midst and of the saints having a forgiving spirit toward a repentant brother who has sinned (vss. 20-35). This is senseless. The point of verses 19-20 is that the assembly comes together with the Lord in the midst to invoke God to ratify their binding decision. The promise is sure; “It shall be done for them of My Father which is in heaven.” (Verse 20 may be read in the breaking of bread, but it is only to establish the fact that the Lord is in the midst of His saints when they are gathered together in assembly.)
For those who question whether “whatsoever” is anything that the assembly might pass judgment on, we would point them to 2 Corinthians 2:10. We find there, that when it comes to loosing a binding action, Paul says, “To whom ye forgive any thing ... ” If they are seen forgiving “any thing” they must necessarily have bound “any thing.” This should not be difficult to understand if someone has a willing mind—but that’s the great question. Do we really want the Lord’s mind? People sometimes make such a fuss about the assembly perhaps making a wrong decision, that you wonder what they are driving at. But really, how often has that happened? Rarely. Mr. Potter said that in the 50 years that he had been among brethren he had not known of an action that had been made that couldn’t be submitted to.
To some, the answer is to have another assembly step in and revise the original assembly’s decision. Mr. C. D. Maynard said, “An assembly, when gathered to the Name of Christ, has Him in its midst, and has His authority for acting in binding or loosing the sins of an offending brother (Matt. 18:18-20). Such an act is ratified in heaven. From this decision there is no appeal, save to Christ in glory; as Jesus ‘committed [His cause] to Him that judgeth righteously’ (1 Peter 2:23). ...It might occur to some that if a local assembly judged, as they thought, wrongly, an appeal might be made to another local assembly. For example, to restore a person wrongly put out. This has no more Scripture for it than any Romish corruption. On the face of it, it denies the practical oneness of the two meetings. To entertain the question refuses that there is one body and one Spirit. If the Lord’s table be one, both meetings are bound when one acts, so that appeal is impossible. If they can revise one another’s judgments, the unity of the Spirit does not exist there, they are but independent meetings.” The misunderstanding of this important principle in assembly matters is behind many of the sad divisions that have occurred among those gathered to the Lord’s Name down through the years. We do well, therefore, to ponder these things carefully.
Another erroneous idea that some have is that if the assembly makes a wrong decision, then it forfeits the ground that it is on as gathered to the Lord’s name and is no longer on divine ground. This is not right either. Again, it betrays the ignorance of confounding authority with infallibility. The fact that an assembly has authority, but is not infallible, is to acknowledge the possibility that it could make a mistake. In making a mistake, the assembly does not lose its status as being a Scripturally gathered assembly, any more than parents in a household cease to be parents because they make a mistake in disciplining their child.
An example of this misunderstanding is in what happened at Tunbridge Wells in 1908-9. Many thought that the actions the assembly took, first in silencing (1903), and then later putting away Mr. C. Strange (1908), were unrighteous. Believing that the dealings of Tunbridge Wells were unjust and unscriptural, they thought that the assembly had thereby lost its status as an assembly truly gathered to the Lord’s name. Consequently, many would not bow to their assembly decisions. Mr. W. R. Dronsfield propounds this mistaken idea in his book, “The Brethren Since 1870,” (p. 33), saying, “If two or three are truly gathered unto the Lord’s Name, any decision they come to must be right for heaven to acknowledge it as such. The converse of this, however, is also true, which is that if those gathered together come to an unjust and unrighteous decision, they cannot be gathered unto the Lord’s Name.” This mistaken idea led to a sorrowful division among brethren.
Summary:
If we think that the assembly has made an error in a binding decision:
First, we need to be sure that we understand the principles involved. It could be that we are uninformed and ignorant of certain Scriptural principles. If indeed it is a wrong decision, we should bring it to the Lord, the Head of the church, in prayer.
Then, we should express our convictions—based on Scripture—to the brethren and then wait for them to be exercised about it.
Then, we are to wait on the Lord to intervene and to set it right. Let us rest assured that He will come in, in His own time and in His own way; faith will wait on Him. If it is a serious error, it may be that the Lord will lead another assembly to formally disown that assembly as being on divine ground.
In the meantime, we are not to take things into our own hands and to begin to campaign among the brethren to overturn the decision. It is possible to stand for a right thing in a wrong way—and this only brings in confusion. Oftentimes, those who act in the flesh in assembly matters get slain—even if they are fighting for what is right! This was the danger that Peter got into in drawing his sword. The Lord said to him, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matt. 26:52).
Chapter Nine: Why Did the Early Brethren Receive All Believers but We Don't?
Question:
Why did the brethren in the 1800s receive all Christians to the breaking of bread, but the brethren today don’t? It sounds like they have departed from the truth and have become sectarian.
Answer:
I think that it’s important to understand a little history of the “Brethren.” The recovery of the truth in the 1800s did not happen in a matter of days or months; it took a period of years. The early brethren who met simply to break bread hadn’t considered the need of reception, and hence, had no real reception principles. It wasn’t until the Bethesda trouble (the Open Brethren division in 1845-48) that it came to light that care was needed in regard to receiving people into fellowship—especially those who came from that divergent group. Therefore, to point to the practice of the brethren in those early days as being a model for assembly function today is bogus.
To some, meeting on the ground of the “one body” (Eph. 4:3), as we profess to do, means that we receive into fellowship every member of the body of Christ. To them, to refuse fellowship with any true believer is to deny the ground that we take. In a perfect world we would be able to receive every true believer, but, as mentioned earlier, we are in the closing days of the church’s testimony on earth, and there is a great ruin. Many believers are walking in doctrinal error and/or moral evil, and Scripture tells us that these persons are not to be received. Obeying Scripture by not receiving such people is not a denial of the truth of the one body.
The preeminent thought of the “one body” is unity. Ephesians 4:3-4 says, “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace; there is one body.” Keeping the unity of the body is God’s work and responsibility; but keeping the unity of the Spirit is our responsibility. The Lord would have us to express the unity that exists in the body in the way in which we meet for worship and ministry with fellow Christians. We do it in the breaking of bread (partaking of the one loaf) and in matters of inter-assembly fellowship and discipline. In short: wherever people are on earth gathered on that ground, they act together administratively and in matters having to do with all aspects of fellowship. Hence, when we say that we meet “on the ground of” the one body, we mean that we seek to express in practice this unity that exists. It does not mean that we automatically receive every believer regardless of how he or she is walking. Meeting on the ground of the one body is not co-equal with meeting with every member of the one body. Perhaps it would be clearer to say that we meet on the principle of the unity of the body.
There Should Be Care in Reception
Care for the Lord’s glory, in regard to what we bring into fellowship, is something that is almost non-existent in Christendom today. Nevertheless, the Bible teaches that the assembly must be careful not to bring someone into fellowship who may be involved in evil; whether it is moral, doctrinal, or ecclesiastical. The principle is simple. If a local assembly is responsible to judge evil in its midst by excommunicating evildoers (1 Cor. 5:12), then it naturally follows that it must be careful what or who it brings into its midst.
It has been rightly said that the local assembly is not to have an open fellowship, nor is it to have a closed fellowship, but rather, a guarded fellowship. The assembly is to receive to the Lord’s table every member of the body of Christ, whom Scriptural discipline does not prohibit. While every Christian has a title to be at the Lord’s table, every Christian does not necessarily have the privilege to be there, because his privilege may be forfeited by his engagement in some evil.
Who Decides Who Should Be In Fellowship?
It is important to understand that the brethren in the local assembly do not decide what is suitable to the Lord’s table and what is not—the Word of God does. This is because it is not their table: it is “the Lord’s table” (1 Cor. 10:21). Personal preferences of those in the assembly have nothing to do with reception; the Word of God decides all. If there is no Scriptural reason why a person should be refused, the person is received. If a believer has been baptized, is sound in the faith, and is godly in walk, there is no reason why he should be refused. Knowledge of Scripture is not a criterion. A person may be a simple believer, but Scripture says, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations” (Rom. 14:1).
However, whether one is sound in the faith and godly in walk often cannot be determined immediately. The greater the confusion from which a person comes within the Christian testimony or in the world, the more difficult it may be to determine. If this is the case, then wisdom would dictate that the assembly should ask the person desiring to be in fellowship to wait. This does not mean that the assembly is saying that the person is connected with evil. He could be, but they simply do not know, and they should wait until they are satisfied that he is not; because they are ultimately responsible to God for whom they bring into fellowship. Scripture says, “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins” (1 Tim. 5:22). This verse is speaking of personal fellowship on an individual basis, but the principle is broad enough to guide the saints in collective assembly fellowship at the Lord's table. It should not offend a mature and godly believer who desires to come into fellowship, for certainly, no godly Christian would expect the assembly to violate a principle of Scripture. In fact, it should give him confidence that he is coming into a company of Christians where there is a concern for the Lord’s glory and the purity of the assembly.
Are Personal Testimonies Enough?
Another principle that needs to be understood in connection with this subject is that the assembly, functioning Scripturally, does not do anything in the mouth of one witness. Things having to do with the assembly must be done according to the principle: “In the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall every word [matter] be established” (2 Cor. 13:1). Compare also John 8:17 and Deuteronomy 19:15. Accordingly, the assembly is not to receive persons on the basis of their own testimony. Naturally, people give a good report of themselves, as the Scripture says, “All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes” (Prov. 16:2). And again, “He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory” (John 7:18). This is why a person desiring to come into fellowship may be asked to wait. Once brethren in the assembly have gotten to know a person desiring to be in fellowship, it can receive him on the basis of the testimony of others.
This is a principle that runs throughout Scripture. Even the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, submitted to this principle when He presented Himself to the Jews as their Messiah. He said, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true [valid]” (John 5:31). He then proceeded to give four other witnesses who testified as to who He was: John the Baptist, His works, His Father, and the Scriptures (John 5:32-39). While having many witnesses to authenticate His Messiahship, the Lord warned the Jews that there was a day coming when the nation would receive a false messiah (the Antichrist) without witnesses. He said, “Another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive” (John 5:43). Thus, the Lord denounced the practice of receiving someone on the grounds of personal testimony.
Acts 9:26-29 gives us an example of the carefulness the early church had in receiving someone into its fellowship. When Saul of Tarsus got saved, he desired to come into fellowship with the saints at Jerusalem but was refused. Even though everything he may have said to the brethren in Jerusalem about his personal life was true, still, he was not received on his own testimony. It was not until Barnabas took Saul and brought him to the brethren and testified of Saul’s faith and character—so that there was the testimony of two men—that they received him. Thereafter, “he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem” (Acts 9:28).
The Test of a Person's Profession
Another principle in receiving is that there is such a thing as putting a person's profession to the test. If a man says that he is a Christian, he is to prove it by departing from all known sin. Second Timothy 2:19 says, “Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” (See also Revelation 2:2 and 1 John 4:1.) If a person does not depart from iniquity, he is not true to his confession. This is especially important in a day of ruin and breakdown in the Christian testimony, where all kinds of evil doctrine and practice abound. An example of this is seen in type in 1 Chronicles 12:16-18. David was the rejected king of Israel at that time, and as ones from various tribes in Israel realized their wrong in rejecting him, they came and owned him as Israel’s rightful king. When those from the tribe of Benjamin (king Saul’s tribe) came to him, he put their profession to the test. When their confession was deemed to be real, and they showed that they were truly on David's side, it says, “Then David received them.”
If a person holds bad doctrine, it is clear that the assembly is not to receive him, for it will be in fellowship with the evil teaching. (Compare 2 John 9-11.) We do not speak of differences people may have on topics such as baptism, but of things which touch the foundations of the Christian faith. Scripture says, “Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: that ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God” (Rom. 15:5-7). If a person who held some evil teaching was received, how could the assembly “with one mind and one mouth glorify God?” They would be speaking one thing, and this person would be speaking another. It would be confusion. The Apostle Paul said to the Corinthians, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10).
With ecclesiastical evil, patience and discernment are required in discerning it in a person. There is a difference between someone being associated with clerical error out of ignorance and someone actively upholding and promoting it. A believer, who is ignorant of God’s Scriptural order for Christian worship and ministry, may come to the assembly from a man-made denomination that practices a clerical order of things, and want to break bread at the Lord’s table. Even though he may be associated with ecclesiastical error, he is not at that point, in ecclesiastical evil. And if such a person is known to be godly in walk and sound in doctrine, there should be no hindrance to allowing him to break bread, even though he has not formally severed his association with that denomination.
The great question is, “When does ignorance of ecclesiastical association become ecclesiastical evil?” We believe the answer is when the person’s will is involved. To ascertain this requires priestly discernment on the part of the assembly. In such cases, the assembly needs to be much cast on the Lord to know His mind in the matter. Under normal conditions, the brethren should allow him to break bread, trusting that God has been working in his heart—and that he will, after being at the Lord’s supper, leave that ground he has been on formerly, and continue with those gathered to the Lord’s name.
This is illustrated in type in 2 Chronicles 30-31. Hezekiah encouraged the people of Judah, and those from the ten departed tribes, to partake of the Passover and to worship the Lord at the divine centre in Jerusalem. After they did this, they went home and destroyed their idols and images. (We are not insinuating that man-made denominations are akin with idolatry. We are speaking of the principle only.) The interesting thing to note here is that Hezekiah had not told them to do it! It was a response from their hearts that came purely from their being in the Lord's presence in Jerusalem. However, if a person wants to continue to go to both places regularly, it should not be permitted. J. N. Darby has remarked that such a person is not being honest with either position. He also said that as looseness and corruption in the Christian testimony rises, it will become increasingly more difficult to practice this principle. More discernment will be needed as the days grow darker. In our day this principle is acted on very infrequently.
Another Old Testament type illustrates this care in receiving. When the city of Jerusalem, the divine centre on earth where the Lord had put His name, was re-built in the days of Nehemiah, there was great danger from the enemies around them. Consequently, they did not open the gates to allow persons into the city until “the sun was hot [literally – ‘midday’]” (Neh. 7:1-3). They made sure there was no trace of darkness around before they received persons into the city. Until that time, they made those wanting to come in to “stand by,” or wait. (See the same principle in 1 Chronicles 9:17-27 regarding “doorkeepers.”) As the darkness in Christendom grows in these last days, this kind of care must be exercised in receiving.
Contrary to what some may say, the early church was careful in receiving people into fellowship. This is seen in how they handled Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:26-28). Apollos needed a letter of commendation in going to Achaia (Acts 18:27-28). This shows that he wouldn’t have been received without it. Phebe also needed a similar letter in going to Rome (Rom. 16:1-2). See 1 Timothy 5:22—“Lay hands suddenly on no man.” Moreover, Paul told Timothy to walk with those who “call on the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Tim. 2:22). How would anyone discern this in a person without taking time to get to know them? If the assembly is responsible to put evil out of its midst (1 Cor. 5), then it obviously should be careful in what or whom it brings into its midst. Hence, there is a need of care in receiving persons into fellowship.
Summary:
The truth was in the process of being recovered in the early days of “Brethren” history. In the beginning J. N. Darby and those with him had, so to speak, “one eye open” to the truth. There was a development of understanding that can be traced in his writings. Later in life he wrote to Mr. Kelly, who was compiling his writings, reminding him that care needed to be taken because of this. He said, “I should think that some of the notes require revising, but I have no objection to them if they are useful being printed as Notes. Even the sermons contain things I should not accept. Some of the earlier publications would require a note or two, where clearer light was acquired, but had better not be altered.”
One of the subjects that they got “clearer light” on was reception. The problem in connection with Bethesda gave occasion to this. Thereafter, they were more careful in receiving persons into fellowship. Therefore, it is not valid to point to the practice of brethren in their earliest days as a model for the assembly today.
Chapter Ten: What Is the Point of Being Gathered?
Question:
What is the point of being gathered to the Lord’s Name?
Answer:
Sometimes we can get lost in the morass of searching for the truth in regard to the subject of gathering and wonder whether it is really worth it. We might be tempted to throw up our hands in frustration and say, “What is the point of it all anyway!” We realize that it can be frustrating, but there is a good answer for this too.
I am indebted to brother David Graham for this answer. He said that it’s really three-fold:
Firstly, God desires that there would be a testimony to the name of Christ in this world. It is His will that Christians would meet together for worship and ministry around the Person of His Son.
Secondly, the Lord Jesus delights in having His own gathered around Himself to enjoy their company. Psalm 50:5 indicates this in principle, even though it is referring to Jewish believers in a coming day; it says, “Gather my saints together unto Me.”
Thirdly, the Lord wants His people to have the special joy of being where He is in the midst; it is a privilege to be there. In experiencing it, we will, like Peter, say, “Lord, it is good for us to be here” (Matt. 17:4).
These things ought to be enough for us to want to seek the place of His appointment and to be found there in His presence. It is the will of God.
Postscript
Young people associated with those “gathered to the Lord's name" according to Matthew 18:20 are being bombarded with questions regarding the ecclesiastical position that the brethren take in separation from denominational church order in Christendom. Many of them are looking into this subject and have good and honest questions—and these questions deserve good answers. The intention of the author of this book is to try to unravel some of these puzzling questions for those who are seeking the truth—to the end that they would have a better understanding of the Scriptural principles of gathering.
The author has no intention of denigrating the various Christian groups in Christendom as he takes up this subject, but rather, to present Scriptural answers to these questions. However, the answers that he gives will not do a person any good if his will is at work and he doesn’t want the truth, because the truth is only learned by those who have willing spirits. We, therefore, need the attitude of David who said, “Teach me Thy way, O LORD, and lead me in a plain path” (Psa. 27:11). If we are honestly seeking God's mind on this subject, the Lord will use His Word to guide and teach us. He said, “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine” (John 7:17). This promise is as good now as it was when the Lord gave it almost 2000 years ago.