It deals initially with the subject of ‘receiving at the Lord’s Table’ or rather accepting for the ‘breaking of bread’. The translating is done from dutch by dutch’, forgive therefore some ‘dutchisms’. We are thankful for the help we received in our work from Jose Nanninga of Orangeville, ON; she is a niece of the author.
The contents gives a lot of details about the ins and outs of ‘reception’. The style may be typical of some European cultures and could give the impression of being here and there somewhat
imperative, but the particulars can serve as guidelines in studies on this subject. It also shows how thorough the author is (and for that matter the dutch brethren) in dealing with this issue.
We trust that the Lord will bless this treatise and use it for his glory.
CHECK IT OUT #1
by J.G.Fijnvandraat
Edition: 1995 Distribution: Postbus 113, 8170 AC Vaassen, Holland
(note: words between [] are by the translater)
WITH WHICH BELIEVERS DO WE CELEBRATE THE LORD’S SUPPER?
[CHAPTER 1]
For our readers
The ‘Check it out’ series is [primarily] intended for believers known in the christian world as ‘the brethren’. They definitely do not want to use this name as a classification, but consider every believer as their brother or sister in the Lord Jesus Christ. As a group they might also be known as ‘assembly of believers’. Even that, however, is not meant to be apart from other believers. They want to come together simply as an ‘assembly of believers’, nothing more, nothing less. There is in our personal walk of faith always a certain tension between principle and practice. We know what God asks from us as christians, but we do not always answer to it in practice. That’s why we continually need to be encouraged, admonished and corrected by the word of God. That goes for every christian group, also for the above mentioned. The same tension exists between principles we hold and the practical outworking of it. Here also, we need to be encouraged, admonished and corrected. In view of this, a number of ‘Check it out’ brochures are published with the purpose to be a challenge for our ‘own’ readers. The title of this brochure is chosen as an encouragement to do what the Jews in Berea did with what Paul taught them. They did not take that for granted, but searched the Scriptures ‘to see if what Paul said was true’ (Acts 17:11).
Principles we stand for
In 1991 a book came out by Medema Publishing in Vaassen [Holland] under the title ‘One in the name of Jesus’. The subtitle reads “Biblical Principles ‘the brethren’ stand for”. Now the big question is if we ‘brethren’ indeed hold to those principles. It is even questionable if we all know the principles of our assembling. For some the main characteristic seems to be ‘believers baptism’. When, after having been in the assembly for some time, they hear that in certain countries or regions so-called family baptism is practised, their spiritual world caves in. For others the distinquishing characteristic is the fact that sisters have their head covered in the meeting. If someone carefully asks the question if 1Cor 11:13 really deals with praying and prophesying in the church, they panic and conclude that the principles of our gathering are being tampered with. Closer to home are the ones who think the distinguishing characteristic is the fact that everyone is allowed to say something. Someone from ‘the outside’ said it like this: ‘The assembly….oh, that is the club where whoever knows it, can say it’. For others – and that is what this brochure deals with – the main characteristic is that someone can only be received to the Lord’s supper if he or she completely joins us. Maybe someone will say that I exaggerate the above illustration. I can only say ‘I hope so’, but I am not so sure.
The title
The intention of this brochure is not to deal with all aspects of our assembling. The emphasis will be on the question with which believers we celebrate the Lord’s supper. I could have given this brochure the title ‘Who do we admit to the Lord’s supper?’ However, I do not really like the word ‘admit.’ It makes me think of an official checking admission tickets. I could use the word ‘receive’ but then the emphasis would only be on our responsibility concerning the receiving of believers. Let us realize, that every believer personally should ask him/herself with whom he/she can celebrate the Lord’s supper. Therefore, if someone comes in contact with us, it is as much his/her good right to test us. That’s why we should also ask ourselves the reverse question, namely: do we really live up to what the scriptures say, in order that true believers want to, and will be able to celebrate the Lord’s supper with us. That does not just concern those that come in contact with us from ‘the outside,’ but also the youth that grows up in our midst. Those young people want to know why we are apart from all other churches and groups. They want to know the principles and look for the practical outworking of it.
One in the name of Jesus
As a young man I struggled with the question if we as a little group really were on the right track. Both my parents went to ‘the assembly’. Together with other brothers, who had the gift of teaching, my father ministered the word there. Every Sunday I went with them to the little meeting hall where about forty believers met to celebrate the Lord’s supper and to listen to the ministry of the word. For me, it was not set in stone that this little group had ‘the truth’ concerning the principles of meeting together. On Sundays we saw two groups of christians, each going to a large church building. Were they all seeing things the wrong way? And what about all the ministers who had studied for it? Added to that was the fact that I attended a reformed teachers’ college where I was considered to be the odd one out. First, I was taught religion by a liberal preacher who swamped us by his criticism of the Bible; after that an orthodox preacher was appointed to teach us from the ‘Three Formularies on Unity.’ I had to digest all sorts of controversial ideas. But I thank God that he gave me clarity in that. I learned that the truth was not necessarily held by the majority (think of the twelve spies); that knowledge by itself is no guarantee for right opinions (think about the Pharisees and Gamaliel); that in the scriptures God has indicated how we should meet and that we cannot ignore it based on ‘God’s hand in history’.
This I learned by verbal instruction, but specially by reading the writings of ‘the brethren’. In those writings the emphasis was on meeting on the basis of the oneness of the body of Christ. We did not consider christians as being members of any church or group, nor of ‘the assembly’. In principle we knew ourselves to be one with all true believers and wanted to receive them at the Lord’s supper if they were not living in sin. Of course I wondered if that was put into practice. I was told of examples of believers of different churches who were received in our midst when they were visiting family or relatives. They found this to be such an experience that as a result they were convicted of the truth of the standpoint of ‘the brethren.’ At the time, I read about a very good example in one of the brochures, concerning a well-known preacher in Rotterdam.
He wrote ‘the brethren’ that he wanted to attend their meeting the following Sunday and asked if he could partake of the Lord’s supper. A few older brothers discussed this matter and told him that he was welcome and that he could also break bread. In response, the preacher wrote back that he was not really planning to come, but that he had written to find out if ‘the brethren’ really acted according to the principles they preached. His actions were of course not nice, but later the incidence was often related to show that we practised our principles. Testimonies like that convinced me then that we acted according to our principles of gathering ‘on the basis of the one body’. Unfortunately, I realized later that this happened only in the past, but later on actually not any more. Especially after the Second World War we became more narrow-minded. I see it as a shortcoming that I did more or less put up with this situation and even condoned it sometimes. This brochure serves to rectify some of that neglect as much as that can be possible.
They devoted themselves to the breaking of bread
Every believer in Jesus Christ wants to answer to the request of the Lord Jesus that he made when he first instituted the Lord’s supper. ‘Do this in remembrance of me’. Celebrating the Lord’s supper is a communal affair. That, of course, raises automatically the question with whom you should or may celebrate the supper. Questions such as: on what grounds do you do that? how should it be carried out? are of course connected with that. These are the important questions we are going to study together. After Pentecost the Holy Spirit was imparted to the followers of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem and they started to celebrate the Lord’s supper. We read in Acts 2:42: ‘ They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer’. With the expression ‘the breaking of bread’ is meant celebrating the Lord’s supper (Acts 2:46, 20:7). At the Lord’s supper, just as at any ordinary meal, the bread was broken first. In the course of time the act of ‘breaking bread’ indicated specifically the Lord’s supper. The verse in Acts 2 shows that the breaking of bread was part of the congregational service of the first christians. If I speak specifically about the Lord’ supper in this brochure, it does not mean that I consider that as in unconnected act. Unfortunately, that often happens. The bible shows us however that the celebration of the Lord’s supper forms part of larger area of fellowship with each other and with God. All these activities are related to ‘assembly life.’
Not a question of doctrine, but of walk
Those that were converted as a result of the apostles’ teaching, celebrated the Lord’s supper out of love for God and for Christ. They also felt the bond of that love with each other. They still had to learn what it really meant to be a church. This teaching was only just partially known by the apostles. As children of God, they knew themselves joined to their heavenly Father. They knew each other as brothers and sisters and therefore realized that they formed a spiritual family. They knew from the word of the Lord that they were sheep of the flock of which he was the Shepherd. They could know that they formed a spiritual house or a spiritual temple. They could deduct that from the word of the Lord directed to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt 16:18). But what that entailed would for a great part still have to be revealed to them. Only later did the first disciples learn about the Church as the body of Christ, through the ministry of Paul, to whom God had revealed this aspect of the Church.
This teaches us an important lesson. We do not have to know all aspects of the truth of God’s word about the Church in order to celebrate the Lord’s supper. Therefore, we cannot require that knowledge of each other either. The first christians had life of God and on that basis they came together and celebrated the Lord’s supper. Instruction in the ‘teaching’ went along with that, but knowledge of the teaching was not a prerequisite. Sometimes it is said among us: ‘but they do not understand the teaching’ or ‘they do not have the insight!’ That is unfortunate, but it is no reason not to receive those believers if there are no other hindrances. When I was young it was impressed on me that the teaching was not the importance, but life of God. We celebrate the Lord’s supper because we are believers in Jesus Christ; we love him and we want to honour his request. ‘Do this in remembrance of Me’. Of course, love for the Lord Jesus creates a desire in us to increase our knowledge and insight, but knowledge should not be made a prerequisite for celebrating the Lord’s supper.
Pictures of the Church
How to conduct the church service, of which the Lord’s supper is part, is in the first place not dictated by only quotations from God’s word, such as:
‘What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation, all of these must be done for the strengthening… Two or three prophets should speak and the others should weigh carefully what is said’. (1Cor 14:26,29)More important is the fact that the Church is presented in the scriptures, among others, as the Body of Christ and the House of God
These two pictures contain all the characteristics of the Church that christians have to deal with in the practice of their meeting together. The Bible deals with these characteristics quite extensively.
Characteristics of the Church
These are the characteristics of the ‘body’:
- The guidance of the body rests with the head.
- The body consists of many members, each one with his own function and the necessary skills for it.
- The body forms one unit, and there is only one body.
(Rom 12:1-8; lCor10:17; 12 and 14; Eph2:16; 4:7-16;Col.2:18,19; 3:15)
Some of the characteristics that belong to the picture of the ‘house’ are:
- General priesthood;
- Order and discipline concerning the holiness of God.
(Eph 2:19-22; 1Tim 3:14-16; 1Pe 2:4-9, Ps93:5)
Consequences
In practice these symbolic pictures mean the following:
- The believers as members of the body of Christ must be able to freely exercise their gifts in the assembly as well as outside it, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit through whom Christ, as Head of his Church, rules. It is in conflict with the headship of Christ and moreover restricting the liberty of the Holy Spirit who wants to use in the meetings ‘whomsoever he wills’, when the agenda of the religious service is placed in the hands of one person, who has been appointed by people for that purpose and has to meet the conditions made by people. The same goes for gifts to the outside [to reach outsiders], when these [gifts] are controlled [by an administrative body].
- There is one Assembly, one Church only and she is indivisible. All believers are members of the body. That is the only membership the Bible knows. The forming of various denominations or companies is contrary to both aspects. The Bible does not know of membership of a church or group, but only the membership, or ‘being a member’ of the body of Christ.
- The Scriptures do not know of ‘highpriests’ or any form of chief priests [when referring to the Church in the New Testament]. All believers are priests. The only specific priest is Christ. He, and he only, is the Highpriest. The arranging of classes of clergy and laity, competent and incompetent, is contrary to the Scriptures. The only restriction the Bible mentions is that sisters should be silent in the Assembly.
- In the Assembly all carnal activity is to be judged, because it causes disorder. There is to be discipline in walk (1Cor.5) and in doctrine (2John:9). Because of the extreme tolerance in christendom these points are of great importance to be observed when receiving believers from other circles. On the other hand we should realize that exercising discipline in not just to expell the wicked person from our midst. That is the extreme of discipline. It is actually not a measure of discipline, but an action to be taken after all discipline and all instruction has failed.
WITH WHICH BELIEVERS DO WE CELEBRATE THE LORD’S SUPPER?
The free working of the Holy Spirit
In the previous chapter we dealt with certain precepts and practices found in christianity. We do judge these principles, but not the persons. Many christians are totally unaware that they are in fact disobedient to God’s word. They are therefore not ruled by a spirit of selfmindedness, unbelief or rebellion. We have to distinguish between objective disobedience in ignorance and subjective deliberate disobedience. It is often said that because of the order of service in churches the free working of the Holy Spirit is curtailed. That may be so, but a few remarks are in place.
First of all, the Holy Spirit is not quenched in church fellowships. God gives rich blessings in all sorts of churches and groups wherever Christ is preached from the scriptures. Fortunately there are still many preachers who are not influenced by new theologies and who bring a message with much blessing.
Also we may well consider that more conversions take place in groups who to some degree have a form of organization, than with us, who claim the free working of the Holy Spirit. Lastly, let us remember that it is one thing to acknowledge a principle, and another still to work it out. Frankly speaking: if one Sunday after another the same speaker gets up and others do not get a chance to be used by God’s Spirit, this is also a curtailing of the free working of the Spirit and that is much more serious, because ‘we know better’.
The Church precious to God
Before we actually start with our subject, it will be good to realize that the Church is very precious to God. He has obtained her for Himself by the blood of his own Son (Acts 20:28). God was willing to pay that price. All believers belong to that Church. To use another picture, together they form the precious pearl, for which the merchant, our Lord Jesus Christ, sold all he had (Matt 13:45,46). It suits us, to fold our hands, close our eyes and say: ‘Thank you, Lord God, thank you, Lord Jesus, that you loved me so much and were willing to pay that price for me’. It follows from these verses that the Church does not belong to us, she belongs to God (Acts 20:28); she belongs to Christ (Matt 16:18). Therefore, we should not determine how the Church should be run. Only God has the right to it. Christ determines it, not we. As mentioned before, we find the instructions for this in the scriptures, the inspired word of God.
The questions with whom we can celebrate the Lord’ supper is already somewhat explained before, but requires further explanation. In no way do I want to claim that I know it all. And I would again appeal to every reader to follow the example of the Bereans by examining the content of this brochure and to test it with the scriptures.
Fellowship as believers
Celebrating the Lord’s supper is an important aspect of practical fellowship as christians. We will look at the concept of ‘fellowship’ a little closer. The expression ‘to have fellowship’ means: to share something together. It might be doing things together. Or to share together in reproach or persecution. To take part in the collection is another aspect. If together with others you are involved with the same project or with persons, you have in that sense fellowship with each other. We also like to look at some biblical expressions of having fellowship. All believers are called into fellowship with God’s Son, Jesus Christ our Lord (1Cor1:9). That means that we belong to Him and have a part in everything the Father gave Him, as the glorified Man. Believers know the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (2Cor 13:13). They are [indwelt] by the Holy Spirit and they also experience that He is with them and leads them. We also have fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ (1J1:3). With the Father we share the appreciation for the Son and with the Son we share the love of the Father. As believers we walk in the light and therefore have fellowship with one another (1J1:7). This fellowship is practically experienced in our walking together and is symbolically expressed by taking part of the Lord’s supper. (1Cor10:16,17).
Two dangers
In the practical outworking of our fellowship, we are exposed to two dangers:
a. we curtail this fellowship by rules and regulations that do not have a basis in scripture, whereby members of the body of Christ are unjustly left out.
b. we may unjustly broaden our fellowship by carelessness, and as a result celebrate the Lord’s supper with persons who are not good.
We have to strive sincerely to walk in the right path between these two extremes. After all, there are various scriptures that deal with this question that occupies us. Some of the most important: 1Cor5:6; Gal5:9 (in connection with 2Cor2:5-9; 2Cor7:11); 1Cor10:14-22; 1Cor 15:34; 2Cor6:14-18 ; 1 Tim2:19; Heb13:12-14; 2J9-11; Rev18:4; Lev13,14; Num19; Hag2:11-15; Deut13:5; 17:7.
I hope to deal with a number of these scriptures in a separate brochure. First of all, I like to point out that these verses ask for a solid explanation. In general there is little difference of opinion about the immediate explanation. But transferring the teaching to our time and situation may give problems. One of the mistakes is that in our application we go much further than we can account for. The danger is then that we turn the details into points of dispute that tend to divide us. Often in such a case it is not a matter whether we close the door completely or open the door wide , but if the door is not perhaps a few inches more or less closed.
Two principles
We have already mentioned that assembling on the basis of scripture means that we have to consider two principles:
- the Church is the body of Christ
- the Church is the house of God
The first principle unites all believers, wherever and in whatever way they gather! If we did not have any other scriptures, every christian would be able to celebrate the Lord’ supper with any other christian.
The second principle narrows this down, because there has to be order and discipline in the house of God. For this reason we cannot share the Lord’s supper with just simply all believers. Further still, scripture even warns us not to associate with those who call themselves brothers, but who have an immoral life (1Cor5:11) or with those who bring false teachings (see 2J:9). The great challenge is to maintain the right balance between these two principles, that complement each other.
Norms for partaking of the Lord’s supper
It is my conviction that both principles, of the body and of the house, are met if the following norms for partaking of the Lord’s supper are taken into account:
- Persons have to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.
- They should not be marked by moral (1Cor5) or doctrinal (2John) evil.
- They should not have contact or fellowship with ‘wicked people’, (as in point 2) by which ‘they have fellowship with their sins’. On the contrary, they should judge these practices and teaching.
I would like to add to point 2: they should not be sectarian and turn against the teachings of the scriptures (Rom 16:17). Every christian should adhere to these standards for himself and for those with whom he is going to celebrate the Lord’s supper.
Association or contact?
In the past, in following others, I formulated the third point like this: he/she should not have any association with evil. [Now] I have consciously rejected this reasoning, because the scriptures do not use the word ‘association’ in that sense. If we do this, we open the door for purely human conclusions and opinions that are not covered by the scriptures. Moreover, in our time, we know about associations that were totally unknown in apostolic times, such as for instance the membership of an Automobile Club.
The use of the word ‘association’ has led to the fact that believers are refused to take part of the Lord’s supper, because on paper they are members of a local or world-wide group, wherein somewhere in the world an evil person is found. They never have contact with that person and would not even receive such a one in their local fellowship. In such a case we go further than the scriptures indicate. The Bible says of the believers in Sardis, who are faithful, that ‘they have not soiled their clothes’ (Rev3:4). Often we pass over this verse instead of learning the lesson that outward association does not automatically makes one unclean. There must be a specific intercourse, in which fellowship with the sins of others occurs.
That is indeed the case if in a local assembly persons with evil teaching and walk are tolerated. Such people would be encouraged in their wicked ways if christian fellowship is practised with them. Such an assembly is thereby co-responsible for their evil, they have fellowship with their wicked work. We should not receive believers from such assembly, but we should impress upon them that ‘the receiver is as bad as the thief’ and that they should separate from that assembly. The point here however is about direct contact, the actual practising of fellowship. An illustration might clarify the difference between contact and association. Everyone will agree that the bond of marriage is a very special association. In the Old Testament we read that if someone had become leprous, he was to be put away as unclean, outside the fellowship of Israel. Was the wife of this leper now also unclean because of the marriage bond? No, only if she would have contact with her husband. The Old Testament always deals with actual contact, with touching. We have to take this into account when we apply old testament data about defilement to our situation. In other words, it must refer to direct spiritual contact with evil persons. That’s why I formulated condition 3.
This formulation is furthermore also completely biblical, for the New Testament speaks about ‘having fellowship with the sins of others’ and warns us about that. We already discussed that to ‘have fellowship’ means to share with another, together taking part in something. To ‘have fellowship with the sins of another’ also means then to have a part in his sins, to be responsible for it. That kind of fellowship occurs if:
a. one commits the same sin (Eph5:11), in which case the second norm is not met.
b. one supports evil persons and shares in their evil works or wishes them success (2 John:11 and 1Tim5:22).
c. one refuses to separate from an environment or a system clearly judged by God. One is then subject to the same judgement because of identification with the wicked person (see Rev18:4 and take note of the word ‘so that’; compare also with Psalm 1:1)
Just a remark on the side: There is another phrase that we should not use in my opinion: ‘defilement of the Table of the Lord’. This expression is not found in scripture and therefore questionable. It is also a thoughtless expression. How then is the Table defiled? Do we have to imagine that God sees the entire Table as unclean? Or is it only stained? Maybe we should say, there is a stain on the assembly who admits such a person. That concurs with Jude:12 where it speaks of ‘blemishes at your love feasts’. Those blemishes can be removed by expelling such persons from our midst. As christians we have to stay with expressions used in the scriptures; that prevents ‘slipping’.
Further explanation 1
The above [under ‘Two dangers’] requires further explanation about being a member of a local or world-wide church organization where false teachers or moral evil is tolerated. Often we find in these organizations modulations that operate entirely unconnected. Therefore there is no direct contact or support as in 2 John:10 and subsequently no fellowship with the sins of others. It is a different matter when ministers in such a church organization have fellowship with liberal colleagues in a synod-meeting and give them ‘the right hand of fellowship’. The other way around there may be believers who want to stay in their church because they believe to have the call to continually witness against the decline, and do not extend the right hand of fellowship to the minister and do not take part with him of the supper, but over and over point out that he should turn away from wrong doctrine. Each case should be evaluated on its own merits. But the key question remains, whether one has actual fellowship with the sins of others. Carefulness is required, but it may never come down to curtailing practical fellowship whereby members of the body of Christ are unjustly excluded .
Further explanation 2
As said before [under ‘Two dangers’], there is a second danger, that we allow anyone who comes in and claims to be a believer to break bread. That kind of practice is at times defended with an appeal to 1Cor11:20: ‘A man ought to examine himself before he eats and drinks of the cup’. This verse however deals with insight into the meaning of the supper, that it is not an ordinary meal, but a meal where the bread and the wine represent a spiritual matter, the body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone who takes part of the supper must discern this for himself. If he does not do this, and he eats and drinks only to fill his stomach, then he ‘eats and drinks judgement on himself’. It deals here with personal responsibility before God.
On the other hand, it says in 1Cor5 that believers together have to ‘judge those who are within’ and that wicked men have to be removed from the fellowship. If christians are responsible for removing wicked persons, then at the same time they have to see to it that such persons are not being received at the supper. It concerns here an authority which the local assembly has received from the Lord and this is not something they claim for themselves. There should therefore be sufficient time to talk with a person and, if possible an opportunity to get information about him. The need to do this may become clear by the following illustration.
A practical lesson
One Sunday morning I entered the meeting hall and saw a [stranger] sitting in the back, unknown to me. I thought to myself that he could well be a christian. It was still early and I thought that maybe, together with another brother we could have a talk with him to find out if he possibly could partake of the supper. Yet I did not have the liberty and let it go. The service started. When the bread went around, I heard behind me a noise: someone got up and left. It appeared to be the [stranger]. The bread was passed him by and therefore he walked out angry. I felt unhappy when I noticed that. After the meeting I talked with the brother who sat beside him, who told me he knew the man and that his marriage was not at all in order: he already had a relationship with three other women. His information made clear that this man certainly could not partake of the Lord’s supper.
Later on the man phoned me with the critical question if I could explain 1Cor11:28 to him. I did and also pointed out 1Cor5 without addressing his own situation. I held out to him, that we have the responsibility to take care, for instance, that an adulterer does not take a part at the Table of the Lord. In other words, if someone comes in without a letter of commendation and without us knowing the person sufficiently, then it is not possible to exercise such care. I told him he should not expect to be able to just partake in that case without ado. My words were not gracefully accepted and the matter was closed. It shows however that practically speaking, ‘receiving’ on one’s own responsibility is contrary to the principle of 1Cor5. The above viewpoint [explanation 2] which is often criticized, is therefore far too liberal. As far as I know it is only practised by a few churches and groups.
A separated circle of fellowship
Among believers of English speaking countries, the expression “a separated circle of fellowship was introduced by a teacher called F.W. Grant. [referring to typical dutch situations] As a result, in some assemblies believers outside this ‘circle’ who want to take part of the Lord’s supper are refused with the argument: ‘Yes, but you are not in (practical) fellowship with us’. In practice this means as much as: ‘You don’t belong to our group’. Such a statement reminds us very much of what the disciples said, who forbade someone to cast out demons in the Name of Jesus. They gave the explanation: ‘We told him to stop, because he was not one of us’. (Mark9:38, Luke9:49).
The question however is not if one is in fellowship with us, but if one has fellowship with the Father and the Son. The expression ‘a separated circle of fellowship’ may definitely not be used as a barrier for believers, who do not regularly meet with us.
Assembling on the basis of the unity of the body There are two more expressions that need a closer look: ‘assembling on the basis of the unity of the body’ and ‘ assembly (in)[inter]dependence’. Both expressions are not found in the scriptures and give reason to examine them more closely. We have already noticed [see part 1: ‘Not a question of doctrine…..] that the first disciples were not aware of that principle. The scriptures do not even use the expression ‘assembling on this or that principle’. We might therefore ask ourselves what we mean with that expression. Assembling on the basis of a certain principle means that some principles or regulations are underlying it.
It is true that the unity of the body is indeed a distinguishing mark of the Church.
Assembling on that principle includes that we take into account that same unity. But in what aspect? That could hardly be anything else than that we acknowledge all believers as members of the body and that we know to be united with each other. We talk about assembling on the basis of the unity of the body; [but should we not talk about] ‘assembling, among other things, on the basis of……’? That [the former] could in fact mean nothing else than that we receive at the Lord’s supper all believers in all circumstances. But we certainly do not practise that and that is correct. We ought to exclude christians who live in sin, even though we are convinced that they are members of the body. There is something wrong then with that [the first statement].
As said before, a body is marked by three things:
[1] it forms aunity,
[2] it has a head that directs everything and
[3] memberseach have their own gifts and functions.
Is it not strange then that we have only one distinguishing mark of the body as basis for our assembling? Why don’t we say that we gather on the basis of the one Head? Or that we gather on the basis of the many members? Not to speak of the aspects of the Church as house of God! If we bring this in as well, we could also ask why don’t we gather on the basis of the priesthood, or of the holiness, or of the foundation, etc? If we take as the basis a partly distinguishing mark of the body, than our formulation is strange and not sufficient. If it was all about the formulation only, that would still do no harm, but we attach all sorts of consequences to that formulation for the mutual relationship of the local assemblies.
Assembly (in)[inter]dependence
We also want to look at the second expression. The term ‘assembly-[inter]dependence’ means that the assemblies are mutually dependent on each other. [However,] the thought of mutual dependence fits into the picture of the body. The members of the body are dependent on the head for guidance and existence; not only that, they are also dependent on each other for their functioning. The eye cannot say to the hand: ‘ I don’t need you!’ The eye can see an object and want it, but it is the hand that has to grasp it. The members of the body, the believers, are in that way dependent on each other. But where in the scriptures do we find that the local assemblies are in the same way dependent of each other as the members of a body in relation to each other? I do not want to say that they have nothing to do with each other, but they are not dependent on each other in the same way as the members of a body are.
We do not need to make objections to the term
‘assembly-dependence’ if it means that ‘each local assembly as an expression of the house of God is dependent on the LORD of the house’ . Because they have the same Lord, the assemblies are not loose from each other! That comes closer to the truth. The mistake however is made when the concept ‘assembly-[inter]dependence’ is connected with the concept of ‘unity of the body’. We speak about acknowledging each others decisions in connection with the unity of the body. The mutual relationship of the local assemblies has however nothing to do with the unity of the body. The body gives a picture of the unity of the members, namely the unity of believers each with their different gifts, but n o t of the unity of assemblies.