01.07. Chapter 07 - A Circle of Fellowship or Independency
Chapter 07 A Circle of Fellowship or Independency
We now must consider another question which closely connects to what we have just considered. Independency is the most successful way yet found to evade Scriptural discipline and also the most successful snare to cause the children of God to resist His will, while often honestly believing themselves to be standing only for the principles of the Word: against confederacy, for purity and for unsectarian maintenance of the body of Christ. Therefore, we must look carefully into, first, what independency really is, and then at its fruits. In its simplest and boldest form, independency denies any Scriptural authority for a circle of fellowship outside of the individual (local) gathering. This denial is made in the interests, they reason, of unsectarian recognization of the one Church only, the body of Christ. They claim that to form and maintain a circle is sectarian and that the adoption by such a circle of a common discipline is absolute sectarianism because it makes the whole a ’party’ that may take the Name of Christ, as some did at Corinth (1Co 1:11-13), and make that precious Name an instrument of division. This charge may not be one of denying the Name of Christ, but it comes so close as to make it most serious. Those who hold to a circle of fellowship and yet refuse to adopt a sectarian name (a name that sets them apart from other Christians), can neither afford to give up their claim of gathering simply to Christ’s Name, nor accept what is charged against them. Let us examine, then, what is meant by these assertions and bring all to the test of Scripture. The truth will become clearer by every fresh examination, and the only danger is in our examination being done carelessly.
What is meant by the expression “circle of fellowship”? (The expression itself is not found in Scripture, as neither are other words like trinity or rapture, but the truth expressed by each is found there, Ed.) The thought must be partly believed even by the objector himself if he has others gathered with himself in any local assembly, for these few obviously do not make up the entire Assembly of God in that city. So, there must be a within and a without, a being, in some sense, of us or not of us; a something that is kept from being a part — a sect — by it having no arbitrary, no merely human terms of admission. If there are no terms, then it is a mere rabble of lawless men, to be refused by every Christian.
If you say, “We are to be subject to Scripture only,” that implies that it is Scripture as you see it, not as your fellow Christians see it, and you take your place as before the Lord, to be judged by Him regarding this. Your being separate from others makes a circle of fellowship, but it does not make you a sect. You own Christians everywhere as members of the body of Christ and receive them wherever a Scriptural hindrance to their reception does not exist, and you speak of being gathered simply to Christ’s Name, without any thought of making the Name of Christ an instrument of division.
Well, then, at least in the city of our above example, there is a gathering of Christians that I can and should recognize, apart from the whole body of Christians in that place. I say should because I am responsible to God as to whom I can assemble with. So, here alone, I find those with whom I can assemble, no unscriptural condition being imposed on me. Now, were there another assembly in the same city, of the same character, then I would have to ask why they were not together, for the sin of division is a serious one (1Co 1:10), and I would have to refuse this.
If then, in this city, there is a gathering that I can and must acknowledge, suppose now, I move to another city and find a gathering that I equally can own as gathered to Christ’s Name only, would it be right for me, in the new locality, to now refuse to own as a separated company those in the old city, whom, when I was there, I owned, and if I were there now, I would still have to own? Is it possible that my going from New York to Boston would make that wrong for me at New York which at Boston, would be right, and if I went back to New York, would be right again? If so, that is either complete independency or the most curious shifting of right and wrong that one can imagine — morality shifting every few miles of the road. However, if not, then we are connected, in principle, to a circle of fellowship — a grouping of local assemblies, meeting on common, Scriptural ground and discipline, wherever they may be located. The recognition of each other by such gatherings throughout the world is thus right and everything opposed to it, is wrong. However, Scripture and history have shown us that it is impossible to maintain this in practice for the entire Assembly (Church) of God, if God’s principles are of any value to us. For, were I taking the trip spoken of above, must I not ask for those in Boston who are of one mind with us? Would those in Boston expect anything else of me. A circle of fellowship may be refused in theory, but the facts disprove the theory. The only alternative is grossest independency — associating wherever one wills and recognizing obligations nowhere but where the individual wills. This would be the most complete sectarianism that could exist.
We are to recognize the whole body of Christ, but not their unscriptural associations. In the interests of the righteousness demanded by God for the body of Christ, I refuse denominations, but in the same interests, I must accept the circle of righteous, unsectarian fellowship. The gracious words of Mat 18:20, which provide for a day of failure and confusion and approve the two or three gathered to the Lord’s blessed Name, obviously approve such gatherings in every place. Therefore, a circle — a grouping — of such gatherings exist. It would be as sectarian to refuse identification with these as to take our place with the various denominations. Nor would it save us from this, to say that we were acting for the good of the whole Church of God when the disproof is so easy from Scripture itself.
Further, to accept these Scriptural gatherings is to accept their Scriptural discipline, for the Lord’s approval of the gathering is His approval of their discipline. Of course, I do not mean that they can add to Scripture or invent an unscriptural form of discipline, or that the Lord approves what might be a mistaken judgment. He always is the Holy and True, the Lord and Master of His people. But, these “two or three” of Mat 18:20 have authority for discipline, and woe to him who resists its rightful use: “If he hear not the church (assembly), let him be to you as a heathen man and a publican (tax collector)” (Mat 18:17) refers to just such feeble gatherings as we have been discussing. The same things are true for the discipline as for the gathering itself. If the discipline is righteous and respected at “A” where it is applied, it must be respected at “B” and at “C.” If the decision is a local matter, then the Lord plainly has put it into the hands of those who are in circumstances to judge it aright, although protest and appeal are surely to be listened to and those who judged the matter are required to satisfy those elsewhere who are honestly exercised about it.
Questions about truth as opposed to conduct affect all, and can be put before all. No local gathering has authority in any such matter, for that would be making a creed for others to obey. Further, the truth as to Christ is an especially deep and vital matter, for we are gathered to His Name. Where truth of this kind is subverted, the ’gathering’ ceases to exist except as an instrument in Satan’s hand and we must refuse both it and all who continue with it.
If the question is about facts, then those who have the facts are required to make them known to their brethren. Here, a circular letter could have its place, not to establish a rule or principle of action, but as a witness, which, of course, is open to question as all ’facts’ are, if there is contrary evidence or that given is insufficient. No letter has authority in itself: it can only present facts and all must judge the credibility of the testimony. With these limitations resulting from the fallibility common to us all, we must acknowledge both a circle of fellowship and the discipline connected with it, if we would be free from independency.
Independency always acts against God. It makes the members of the one body say to each other, “we have no need for you.” It denies the unity of the Spirit which should be recognized throughout the body. The more we lament and refuse the sectarianism* that exists all around us, the more we are compelled to and shall rejoice to own simply the body of Christ wherever possible. This circle of fellowship, while it is not the body, provides us the means of owning, in practice as well as in theory, the body of Christ in a truthful and holy way, so far as the Church’s state of ruin permits it to be done. With love to all Christ’s own and with an open door to all, on the conditions of truth and holiness, such a circle is not sectarian, but a protest against it.
Gathering on the ground of the one body is completely different from any claim to be the one body, and it does not imply any man-made (sectarian) condition of intelligence for communion. The maintenance of a common discipline is not sectarian, but it is an essential part of that communion itself: absolutely necessary because the holiness of God is the same everywhere and is not a thing for the “two or three” here or there to play with as they desire.
Independency, in setting aside the practical unity of the Church, also sets aside a main guard of holiness. Holiness is no longer the object of common care, nor is there common exercise about it. Independency releases one from a sense of personal responsibility to the house of God. Rather, it makes one feel that it is only his own house that he is to keep clean, in his own way. This laxity towards the people of God at large (but which is so consoling to an unexercised conscience, that it is a great charm of independency to multitudes today), naturally has the effect of lowering one’s estimate of holiness, thus preventing one’s own house from being kept really clean! Where a circle of fellowship and a common discipline are not maintained (perhaps as a natural fruit of independency), the unholy principle is contended for, that an assembly cannot be judged for the same sin that would compel the judgment of an individual. Thus, almost any local discipline can be evaded by a little dexterity. If the gathering at “B” will not receive you from “A,” it will receive you from “C,” and “C” will receive you from “A.” So, by a little juggling of which assembly you attend, no one is safe anywhere from the violation of a discipline which you recognize as a Scriptural one. Any person, if not too well known, becomes lost in the maze of bewildering inter-communions between independent local gatherings. One who has a conscience and would be clear from unrighteousness, soon has to resign himself to a general hope that what looks so confusing, will in the end, uphold the interests of holiness; or in despair, wash his hands of what he can’t avoid.
Independency is an ensnaring system because both pessimism and optimism can find excuses for it and thus go on with it. One gets free of an amazing amount of trouble without seeming to give up all the Scriptural principles of gathering as many others have, and yet be almost as free as these others from the wearying responsibility of being one’s brother’s keeper. Why should we be our brother’s keeper, they ask, when we only get trouble for our efforts? Find a narrow path instead of a broad, open one that is so pleasant to all of us; and for all this we have only to shut our eyes at the proper time and ignore what we can’t help. The countless small divisions of independency make less show than the terrible rents which we are exposed to otherwise. Why not let this sad-faced Merarite go, with his pins and cords of the tabernacle always getting tangled, and be content with Kohath and Gershom? But, if the Lord’s tabernacle is to be set up in the wilderness, we must have the pins and cords. In result, the truth of God suffers and tends to be lost. But what should we expect when we choose what we will have of it and what we will discard? Fellowship becomes of uncertain quality, with obedience to the Word having little to do with it. Worship is largely displaced by service, for we have lost the necessary pins and cords. One may still go on with the help of what little truth he can still find room for, but the full truth tends to slip away in the jangle of the many opinions of men.
One’s voice may be little heard in a day like this, but I would press upon the Lord’s people, first, their Master’s claim. I press that independency, little as one may imagine it or care to think of it, means ultimate shipwreck of the truth of Christ because it means independency of Him. One will find plenty of associates in independency, for it gives the kind of liberty and freedom so coveted today, but Christ’s authority is not in it. Thus, it cannot have the approval which Philadelphia, in spite of its “little power,” finds from her gracious Lord: “You have kept My Word and not denied My Name.”