WITH WHICH BELIEVERS DO WE CELEBRATE THE LORD’S SUPPER?
[CHAPTER 3]
The teaching of the apostles
From the book of Acts and also in the epistles it appears that the assemblies in the different places were not hanging loosely together. We notice how God watched over the oneness of the existing assemblies in various places. The oneness between the assembly in Jerusalem and the one in Samaria is clearly seen in the fact that the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit only after the apostles came from Jerusalem and laid their hands on them (Acts 8). In this way the division in the Church between Jews and Samaritans was prevented and the danger of developing a Jewish-Christian and a Samaritan-Christian church was avoided.
The closeness between the churches in Jerusalem and Antioch is seen in Acts 11, when Barnabas was send out by the apostles to Antioch to look into the work of God. This unity was also preserved, as seen in Acts 15. There would have been the danger of a split in the Jewish-Christian church and a Gentile church if the matter of circumcision was not dealt with. It is important to note that this is a unity anchored in the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (Acts 15:22). This supervision, which was more or less centrally located, did not remain. That was not meant to be either. Paul does not commend the elders in Ephesus to a Curie or to an overall synod or the like, but to God and to the Word of his grace.
The tie between the churches is a.o.
anchored in the teaching of the apostles which they preached in the Name of the Lord and which God put down in the Scriptures (Acts 2:42 and 1 Cor 4:17). We find then in general a common pattern of conduct among the assemblies, because we like to maintain what Paul ’taught everywhere in every church’ (1 Cor 4:17). That does not mean however that every local assembly acts uniformly in every detail. In one assembly men and women are seated separately. Somewhere else they are mixed. In one place the Lord’s supper is celebrated on Sunday morning and the ministry of the Word in the afternoon. In another place both are combined.
Oneness is not to be confused with uniformity. Think of the big difference in the pattern of conduct between Jewish believers and the Gentiles in dealing with keeping the law (Acts 15). In spite of these differences there was a common bond in the Lord. This common bond is expressed in the use of a letter of commendation when a believer travels from one place to another. Also passing on greetings is an expression of our common bond. (Rom 16) [The truth of the body includes the fact that a teacher not only functions in the local church but in the body as a whole. Apollos functioned as a teacher in Ephesus, but also when he went to Corinth, he ministered with his gifts to the saints there as well (Acts 18:24-28)*]
Order in the house
We should not connect the relationship between the local assemblies with the picture of ’the body of Christ’, but rather with ’the house of God’. Christ is Lord over his house and every local expression of that house. [*]. [The gift of teaching belongs to the body, as mentioned before.] The ‘office’ of elder and deacon, however, has to do with the character of the church as house of God. An elder in Ephesus was elder locally to watch over the order in the house of God (1 Tim3:1-15). Nowhere do we read that elders travelled from one place to the next to put things in order. ‘In every church’, in places they had been, the apostles at that time appointed elders (Acts 14:23). They did not appoint them as elders of ’the’ Church. Therefore an elder from the church in Ephesus could not come to Corinth and there address certain issues, as he would do in Ephesus. A deacon in Ephesus, while visiting Corinth, could not interfere with the care for the needy in that place. The concept of ‘body’ and ‘house’ are not the same. It shows from the example of the elder and the deacon that there is a local responsibility for dealing with certain issues. To put it differently: there is to a certain extend a local independence or autonomy. This comes out clearly when we think of choosing a place to meet together, determining times of meeting, distributing funds etc. On the other hand, as said before, assemblies are not detached from each other. The question is now: how do we practice this?
Interdependence and Independence
Let us be specific: this issue centers especially around two questions: namely ‘reception’ and ‘putting away from our midst’. The question is if someone who is received in assembly A and takes part of the Lord’s supper can be received with a letter of commendation in assembly B or whether he should be tested again by the believers in assembly B. And the other way around: if someone in A is put out from the midst as a wicked person, does the same apply automatically also for B?
Here we come across two different points of view. The first point is: every local assembly is independent of assemblies in other places and is not bound by decisions made in the Name of the Lord elsewhere. These thoughts are unscriptural. We find in Scripture that servants of the Lord travelled from one place to another and were received on the ground of a letter of commendation that was given them. (Acts 18:27; 2 Cor3:1). The other way around will be clear to all, that if someone in Corinth was put away as a wicked person, the same was also valid for Ephesus. To be honest, this independent principle is practised by only a few.
The second principle is like this: assemblies are dependent on each other and a decision in one locality should be acknowledged by other assemblies in other places without question and at all times. This principle also is not biblical, because assemblies are not dependent on each other, but on the Lord. They have a common bond. The teaching of the Lord binds them together, because Paul often commends the same things in all the assemblies of the saints. But that is different from being dependent of each other.
A third principle is this: if a disciplinary measure is taken in the Name of the Lord in one assembly, other assemblies are bound to acknowledge this decision in the first place. Not one assembly however is infallible. It can happen that in some place a wrong decision is made and other assemblies cannot take responsibility before the Lord of upholding this decision. They will then take their objections to the assembly concerned in order that this decision can be withdrawn. If that does not happen, they should not feel bound by that decision.
Is every decision acknowledged in heaven?
It may well be said, that quite a number of brethren adhere to the 2nd principle. We are referring here to the ‘Tunbridge Wells Brethren’. They demand subjection to every assembly decision. They claim the words in Matt 18:18 that whatever an assembly binds on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever is loosed by the assembly is loosed in heaven. But should we conclude that the Lord also applies this to unjust decisions? Why not apply then the same consequences to verse 19? It states, in sequence of verse 18 and closely connected with it, that if two or three believers agree on earth about anything they may ask, it shall be done for them by the Father in heaven. With this statement we make a condition and rightly so. This prayer should have God’s approval, it must be according to the will of God. If that is not so, there will be no answer to it. Well, we ought to consider the same in explaining verse 18. It is totally inconsistent to take verse 18 at face value and not verse 19. I am convinced that verse 20 refers back to verse 18 as well as verse 19.
Revelation 2 and 3
I would like to go a little further into this issue. As an argument for the so-called independent principle, some claim that Christ did not give the churches in Asia Minor the call to interfere with each other. Neither does He say that Philadelphia has to break away from Thyatira because of the evil that was found there. An appeal to what is not said however is weak, for then one has to show that such an indication could really not have been missed.
It is also claimed that nowhere in the New Testament an indication is given that one has to break away from an assembly or that one assembly interferes with the affairs of another assembly. This remark is correct, but the question is whether such an interference is not inferred from the teaching of the New Testament.
It is also important to consider that the Old Testament is as it were a picture book next to the New Testament and the Old Testament gives us some indication in the matter of joint responsibility. The tribes of Israel had within their territory their own responsibility. We do not see any intervention amongst themselves existing in exercising discipline of a tribe or severing the bond with a tribe except when immoral situations occurred. (Judges 19 and 20) or only when idolatry threatened. (Josh 22) for herein lies the test of truly being the people of God. The holiness of God required in those cases an action as a whole. But let’s remind ourselves that this is a great exception, for the Scripture mentions only the above two examples. Only then, when the holiness of God in a local assembly is in question and the situation is totally out of hand, will contact with such an assembly be severed. The question of how this severing of contact is to be practically realized, I will leave at rest in this brochure.
A bit of history
Before going on, I like to highlight a little of the history of the ‘assemblies’. In the beginning of the previous century a revival occurred in Ireland and England with the result that believers started to gather on a principle that considered the oneness of the body of Christ as well as the holiness of the house of God. The main point was to simply gather as believers and in this way to express the oneness of the church as the body of Christ. That’s where historically our roots are. Sad to say, we have not been able to keep this oneness. As a result, two mainstreams developed.
The one stood for a more or less open and/or independent principle, the so-called ‘open brethren’. The other stood for a more or less closed principle, also called ‘closed brethren’. That’s how one group became more and more open, while the other groups closed its ranks further and further. The gap between the extremes became bigger and bigger.
‘Neither … nor’ or ‘and … and’?
At this point I like to make a remark in the margin: the expression ‘open’ and ‘closed’ principles do not occur in the Scriptures These are names we gave and we use them as labels. Any group who has somewhat a broader policy than we, we stick the label ‘open’ to it and thereby disqualify them. The other way around we have the label of ‘closed’ and thereby we are put in the category of the sects. We should neither be closed nor open, but we should be and closed and open. We should be just as closed as Christ is and just as open as He is. It used to be said: we have to receive whom the Lord receives and refuse whom the Lord refuses. But be careful, that is not a matter of feeling and also not a shallow handling of a Bible verse, but a matter of precepts derived in a responsible way from the Bible.
‘Occasional fellowship’
Fortunately there are assemblies who want to take a middle principle between extreme ‘open’ and extreme ‘closed’, where one endeavours to maintain the practice as it was in the beginning. That means that they will receive visitors from other circles, who want to attend the meeting and desire to partake of the Lord’s supper, if they comply with three stated conditions. [see page 8] Of course those believers may also then take part in the service by praying or giving out a hymn, for celebrating the Lord’s supper is part of the total service. For such cases of fellowship the term ‘occasional fellowship’ is often used, mostly in the case of believers who are visiting family or friends over a weekend and come along to the meeting. Or in the case of believers who have read writings of the ‘brethren’ and want to search out the place where they meet.
Sad to say, also those who take the middle principle, have become more and more rigid. In theory the possibility for occasional fellowship is left open, but practically it is reduced to nil, because it is thought that the situation in christianity makes it impossible to act upon it, or one hides behind all kinds of practical objections. By means of this brochure, I want to make an appeal to maintain the ‘occasional fellowship’ or reinstate it. Otherwise the ground of gathering according to Scripture is being undermined.
Various reactions
This kind of appeal causes all kinds of reactions. Some of them I like to discuss.
(a) There are believers among us, who have not thoroughly examined the principles of gathering and they become concerned and ask themselves if this is right or whether we have left the ground of Scripture and the path of our fathers. They don’t realize the fact that we as assemblies in our practical dealings have become narrow and therefore ended up in the ‘shoulders’ of the path of our fathers. We look like the son in the parable who said ‘yes’ (applied to principles in theory only) and did ‘no’ (applied to the practice of receiving). Often we do not know how to handle this ‘occasional fellowship’ in practice. That makes such believers insecure. To be honest, not much has been said or written about this in recent times, so the lack of knowledge is explainable.
(b) Other believers welcome such a practice of receiving, but loose sight of the care that must be exercised. That also has to do with the lack of clear teaching. That’s why tensions develop in some assemblies. From my experience in practice and from what I have heard, it seems to me that in some cases special attention is required.
(c) The opinion was also given, that if believers from other groups are being received , we too can go to others, who ever they may be.
‘Taking part somewhere else’
I like to discuss point (c) first of all. It makes an unjust conclusion.. Between these two actions is a big difference. If you visit another ‘church-fellowship’ and take part of the Lord’s supper there, you thereby are [in a sense] co-responsible for what happens in that fellowship. You will have to make sure that you are able to stand for that responsibility. If, for instance we receive believers from a well known and reputable church, we thereby do not declare that we consider their church structure to be right. We receive a believer from such a fellowship because he meets the conditions. We judge the church structure however as unbiblical. By receiving such a believer we do not take responsibility for what happens in that church fellowship where he comes from. If we however visit such a church and take part of the Lord’s supper there, do we not have a responsibility in dealing with our conscience, since we learned to judge this structure as unbiblical?
Why he … and not me?
Now it can happen that someone comes in a situation through a job or other circumstances, that he cannot find an assembly with which we are ‘officially’ in fellowship. When he finds there sincere believers who want to meet on a biblical ground and who reject evil in teaching or walk, he may have liberty in his own conscience to take part of the Lord’s supper. One should leave this possibility open. In the first place such a brother or sister is personally responsible to the Lord. If possible he or she should in this case take up contact with the ‘home-assembly’.
It is a different matter if someone through carelessness or independent action comes in contact with the sins of others. It would be good to warn such a person. He should ask himself whether he might lead others by his example on a path others might follow, even though he himself may not.
Pupils often go further than the master! Paul exhorts the ‘strong’ not to make their ‘weak’ brothers fall. He holds this out to the ‘strong’, to tell them what he would do. He does not lay down the law to the ‘strong’ and neither should we. Paul does not make it an assembly matter either, he leaves it to the personal conscience of the ‘strong’. Alas, an ‘assembly-matter’ is often made out of things that the Scripture puts as personal responsibility. That puts pressure on the assembly and can lead to a division. On the other hand we should never blindly follow other believers, not even leaders among us. We have to consider that if A can allow to do things with a clear conscience, and is kept from falling that it may not be the same for B. I like to illustrate this with a biblical example; it has nothing to do with going to another group, but with the danger of following others. Take Peter and John. John could enter the court of the highpriest without a misstep; Peter, however, could not (J 18:15-27). It will always be that they who follow others blindly, will be personally responsible for their walk. They can never hide behind others.
How it should not be
Let’s now have a closer look at point (b). To be in agreement with ‘occasional fellowship’ is one thing, to implement this way of taking part in the service in an orderly manner is another matter. Of course, it is not right if a believer on his own initiative passes the bread and wine on to a visitor whom he knows to be a believer and thinks that he should also take part of the Lord’s supper. Receiving to the Lord’s supper is really a matter of responsibility of the whole church. This is clear in the first letter to the Corinthians. This letter deals with order and discipline in the church. We might have expected that elders and deacons would be mentioned specifically, because they in particular carry the responsibility for matters in the assembly.
It is remarkable that these ‘officials’ are mentioned in the letter tot the Philippians, while that letter only deals with practical aspects of the life of faith. They are not mentioned in first Corinthians whereas in that letter in particular the matter of order and discipline is dealt with. In this letter to the Corinthians all believers as a whole are addressed and are pointed out their responsibility.
Paul wants as it were to avoid that elders and deacons would feel superior to the church. They might think that teaching in regards to the walk of faith only is important for the flock entrusted to them (the lesson of the letter to the Philippians) and on the other hand they might think that order and discipline is their business and the church does not carry a responsibility in this. In any case he addresses everyone in his letter to the Corinthians and puts the responsibility to all for matters in the church.
Someone who wants to take part of the Lord’s supper should be presented to the whole church by those who are normally entrusted by this, so that those who know the person are in a position to submit possible objections because of wrong walk or teaching.
And what about Barnabas?
Some may challenge the above that it was Barnabas at the time who ‘received’ Paul to fellowship. That is not really a right presentation of facts. Barnabas introduced Paul to the apostles and they received him (see Acts 9:27,28). Barnabas did in no way act on his own initiative. We may well learn from this incident. We suggest that two or three brothers should be able to give a good testimony of a person we want to receive at the Lord’ supper. In general that is a good rule. We take account of the principle that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. From the incident of Barnabas and Saul however it shows that this is not a law of the Medes and Persians. [Dan 6:8] That is also concluded from Acts 11:22, where we read that the church in Jerusalem sends Barnabas to Antioch for a kind of inspection trip. They consider him capable and reliable enough to accomplish this mission on his own. The same today, an assembly could go by the witness of a single person. But is not advisable to make this a general rule, for not every believer is a man like Barnabas. It is said of him that he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith (Acts 11:24) and that cannot be said of every believer. Not everyone has the discernment required for such a task.
How then should it be?
It should be possible to have a quiet conversation to know if someone meets the three conditions mentioned before [see page 8] That is not a matter of a few minutes before the meeting starts. As said before, it actually concerns people who are visiting friends and mostly not unexpected visitors. It is therefore better not to ask just before the meeting starts if the visitor can take part of the Lord’s supper. That should be done the week before, preferably a week earlier, so that it can be announced in advance, and any possible objections can be discussed. After all, ‘strangers’, who just walk in, whom nobody knows, usually won’t take part of the Lord’s supper that same Sunday. Think of the incident of the foreigner that I mentioned before. Another matter is that we cannot let the bread and the cup pass by visitors, who often count on being allowed to take part of the supper, without informing them beforehand. We ought to tell them, very kindly of course, and explain to them in short, why they cannot just like that be permitted to take part of the supper. The caretaker could do that, or a few brothers who keep an eye on those who come in. Eventually one could put a notice in the entrance hall explaining that we in principle will receive all believers to the breaking of bread, who are pure in doctrine and walk, but that first a personal talk must have taken place.
Of course, a closer contact with the visitors should be taken up after the meeting to be of further help to them. Ask them over for a cup of coffee or make an appointment for a visit. If it then appears that they have a wrong doctrine or live an immoral life, then all contact with them will be broken off, unless they turn away from this evil. If we cannot break bread with someone, we cannot have christian fellowship with them either. I repeat once more: to celebrate together the Lord’s supper is not the only expression of the fellowship believers have, it is but part of it.
According to me, it also goes for the other way around, if we can have christian fellowship with someone, and share the things of the Lord, than we can also celebrate the Lord’s supper with them.
Do they have fellowship with God?
This last remark brings to my mind, that a brother abroad stated the problem we are talking about, very simply this way: ‘In the end, the main thing is whether someone has fellowship with God’. That statement really touched me at that time, but the weight of it did not penetrate to me then. When I heard a similar statement made in my own country, I started to think about it more deeply. In fact you can leave out the doctrine derived from the notions of the body and the house concerning the receiving to the breaking of the bread and simply ask the question whether someone enjoys fellowship with God. If we are convinced of that, we ought to receive him. If we do not do that we declare actually that we, as assembled believers, are more holy than God.
Ultimately we cannot look into someone’s heart and therefore we have to go by a person’s words and deeds. We thereby act according to 1 John1:6: if someone claims to have fellowship with God, but walks in darkness, he lies. We decline such a person therefore on the ground of his walk.
WITH WHICH BELIEVERS DO WE CELEBRATE THE LORD’S SUPPER?
[CHAPTER 4]
Everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way Paul dictated to the believers in Corinth that everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way (1Cor14:40). He does so in view of the disorderly situation in the local assembly. In church circles this view is often quoted to defend the institution and maintenance of a particular church order; this restricts the free operation of the Spirit as far as church service is concerned. As said before, the Spirit is of course free to let the pastor speak a good word there and to give a blessing over the sermon, but He is not free to use whosoever He will, and that is what 1Cor12 teaches us. We indeed judge that kind of order, but should not make the similar error on account of 1Cor14:40 by instituting various (unwritten) rules to introduce our own order and then condemn everything that does not correspond with our traditions. The important thing is that the principles of the Word are applied orderly and no confusion occurs. It is also important that it does not say in 1Cor14:33: God is not a God of confusion, but of order. It is typical that it ends with: ‘but of peace’. The point is not in the first place order, but peace.
Concerning our subject, it is of importance that all local believers know how to handle cases of ‘occasional fellowship’ so that the assembly is not taken by surprise. Therefore I want to elaborate on point (a) [see page 15]. Those who have believing acquaintances visiting with them, should know who they can address in cases of ‘occasional fellowship’. That is indeed a matter of order. It would be well, if a few brothers are entrusted with looking after these matters and that this is also made known. The brother who ‘introduces’ the person concerned (for he is in the first place responsible), should have a conversation together with the brothers who have been entrusted with this and with the person concerned. They are doing this on behalf of all, because they have been given the trust to do so. If these brothers have no objections, they commend the believer concerned to join in celebrating the Lord’s Supper next Sunday. In this way the requirement that ultimately everyone is responsible, is met. When no objections from the assembly are put forward, the visitor can take part of the Lord’s Supper.
We may well add to this, that it should also be the desire of the visitor to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with us. The danger is that family members try to persuade their visitors, where the visitors themselves may not be ready for. I don’t mean to say that one should not talk with them about participating, but they should not be put under pressure.
Dealing with objections
To be on the safe side, if there are any objections, it should be about the fact that the person concerned does not meet one or more of the three conditions [see page 8]. Once the matter of ‘occasional fellowship’ itself has been discussed and arranged, these conditions should not play a part anymore.
A sensitive point is how objections should be made known. This is to be sure a matter of practice, not of principle. We should never refuse believers to take part of the Lord’s Supper based on practical objections. In that case we should search for a solution of these practical objections. A few hints could be helpful.
Let the person concerned, who has been informed about the procedure, wait for a minute in the entrance hall and ask the believers inside if those who had (valid) objections, to make these known to the brothers who deal with the matter.
Or the person concerned is introduced and we ask anyone among those present who know the person if they want to talk with him for a minute together with the brothers who are given the trust. This way the word ‘objection’ is avoided. We said already that this often concerns acquaintances or family members who come to visit a brother or sister and that this is usually known beforehand. In such a case ask the brothers who deal with matters of reception to propose to the assembly the Sunday before to let the visitors take part. That way there is enough opportunity in the coming week to deal with possible objections. If there are no objections and the brothers have liberty to let the person take part, after they have talked with him, then it can be announced on Sunday.
These are a few suggestions, but every assembly is of course free to make other arrangements. We do not find a fixed ‘procedure’ in the Scriptures.
Not exaggerating mutual responsibility
There are assemblies (fortunately not in our country) where mutual responsibility is strongly exaggerated. Someone who wants to be in ‘regular fellowship’, has to visit (almost) all brothers and sisters, before his request to take part of the Lord’s Supper can be satisfied. In other places, a request takes at least three months, because it is stated: safety first. This is unbiblical. With such practices we do not even walk of the path of the ‘fathers’, but beside it. It is good to emphasize mutual responsibility, but it should not be exaggerated or one falls into irresponsible procedures. That is definitely not how it went with the three thousand souls who came to salvation on Pentecost. Mutual responsibility does not mean that everyone has the same measure of responsibility. The brothers who have a talk with the person who makes the request, have in the first place the greatest responsibility. Others go by their testimony unless there are valid objections. And there must be an opportunity for dealing with objections. If that is done, than the matter of mutual responsibility is settled.
Gaining insight
A few points need further clarification. In the beginning I stated that we may not demand insight and knowledge for partaking of the Lord’s Supper. That does not mean that we will not try to give insight to believers who come to visit. Would we keep from them something that we have found by grace? Of course not. The same goes for a couple of which one of the partners came to salvation. It is natural, that such a believer talks with his or her partner about salvation in Christ. At times you may have to say to such a person: ‘You better stop talking about conversion. Just show by your behaviour that you are saved and how wonderful your life now is’. That way you win your partner sooner, than with much talk and with putting on pressure’. The same way about giving insight into the principles of gathering. We tell our ‘visitors’ what these principles are and we pray that the Lord will use the teaching to bring them to a better insight. But it is much more important that we show them what this gathering means to us. Not our words in the first place, but our coming together around the Lord has to make such an impression that they are drawn to it. What a responsibility!
How often?
An other question is how often should we receive the same believers in this way. In general the answer is: as long as they meet the three conditions, or as long as they live in fellowship with the Lord. Sad to say there are brothers and sisters who think one time is enough. The person has to have insight to make a decision to gather together ‘with us’ from now on. The big question is if we are dealing with a sincere person, who seriously considers things, but is not ready for it, or is in circumstances that make it difficult for him to decide. In that case we will continue to receive him. The easy way out is to make a fixed rule; one time and that’s enough. But that is not spiritual. Let us observe how the Lord dealt with his disciples in great patience. In the same way we have to have patience with our fellow brothers and sisters who go a different way. Only if evil manifests itself, we will have to refuse admittance, in other cases we have to bring them in.
After all, if our meetings are really holy gatherings, where it is evident that the Lord is in the midst and His honour is considered, than that will have a double effect. Sincere christians will be convinced, just like ‘someone who does not understand’ in 1Cor14:24,25 is convinced and desires to come together like this from now on. Those who act against knowing better, will simply stay away, if we show them their responsibility.
We can learn something from 1John2, where John says, that people have crept in, who appear as false teachers and went out from us. It does not say that they were put out, they went out. It is a case of false teachers who could not stand it in the family of God.
Well, the same goes for insincere, stubborn christians, who act against better knowledge. If the condition among us is right and we show them their insincerity, they will not keep up ‘occasional fellowship’. We do not need to say no to them, but they will say it to us.
Is it according to God’s thoughts?
I let a brother from the ‘liberated reformed church’ read a previous version of this article. His comment was: ‘if someone goes back and forth to us and then breaks bread in his own church, that can never be according to God’s thoughts’. Well, he was right. It is according to God’s thoughts that such a believer continues to take his place that is according to God’s thoughts, but, that is a matter between that brother and sister and the Lord. We should be concerned with a very different question: ‘Is it according to God’s thoughts that we refuse such a believer?’ Only when sin is involved in the life of a brother or sister in one way or another. If we do what God requires of us than God can use that to lead a person further.
Discipline or care
Some have stated that a person who takes part ‘occasionally’ comes also under the discipline of the assembly. There is a typical expression in this statement, the word ‘discipline’. Why don’t we say first: ‘care’? Let us take every possible care of such a person. We do not accept for once only.
As far as we are concerned that brother (or sister) belongs to the assembly. And since we got to know him, we will be glad to receive him again- that is for us the consequence. Of course, he also comes under our discipline if he goes the wrong way or falls into evil. In that case we will exhort him the same way as any brother or sister that regularly visits the meetings. In case he does not repent from his evil ways, we will have to sever our fellowship with him and will consequently not receive him at the Lord’s Supper either.
But there is more to it. In fact every christian comes under our care and discipline. And……we under his! If some christians live in our street, we maintain contact with them. We greet them as believers. If the occasion arises, we converse about spiritual matters. If something goes amiss in their marriage, should we then say: ‘Oh, they are not in fellowship with us, therefore it is not our business’? If we reason that way, we display a sectarian spirit! And should they not have responsibility for us? If these christians fall into evil and don’t turn away from it in repentance, we have to break off contact with them, just as it is laid down in 1Cor5. Our mistake is that so often we have encapsulated ourselves in our own little circle, that we do not realize that 1Cor5 gives directions for fellowship or no fellowship of believers among each other. We limit that to ‘our’ circle, because we can only remove a person from our own midst. We overlook then, that verse 13 is preceded by verse 11. This verse says that we are not to have fellowship with such christians. In that regard, such christians also come under our discipline when they have quarrels with fellow believers in their own circle or if they are exhorted, disciplined or marked on account of certain matters. We have to take account of that and tell them to first straighten these matters out. We want to be hospitable, just as our Lord was hospitable. But He said that a disciple who has trespassed against a brother, first has to straighten that out before he brings his gift to the altar. We do not have to be involved in the problems of other circles. But believers should first clear matters in their own circle before we receive them.
Difference with ‘usual reception’
There is till another matter that needs further clarifying. At the occasion of ‘a usual request for fellowship’ two brothers are asked by the brothers meeting to visit that person. If all is found in order, the believer is presented to the ‘assembly’ the following Sunday and then he or she takes part of the Lord’s Supper the following Sunday. This is more or less the procedure in various assemblies. With ‘occasional fellowship’ however a sort of emergency procedure is followed. Some believers find it difficult that there are apparently two methods of receiving someone at the Lord’s Supper.
Well then, I repeat once more that the Scriptures do not give us any direction as to the procedure of receiving at the Lord’s Supper. We can be certain that our ‘usual method’ was definitely not followed in the time of the apostles. There is no doubt that the three thousand persons who were converted and baptized on Pentecost celebrated the Lord’s Supper the next Sunday with the hundred and twenty other disciples. They were well aware with whom they were dealing. A similar thing can occur among us and has happened in the past. In any case, the Scriptures do not restrict us to a particular procedure. That means that we have room to act on our own discretion.
In principle there is no difference between the usual and the ‘occasional’ method. As far as we are concerned the ‘occasional’ reception is not meant for one time only, the same as the usual reception. There is only a practical difference. In the first case, the person concerned does not (yet) realize what the scriptural ground of gathering is. We try to bring him further, but don’t yet hold him responsible for it. In case he wants to continue to gather with us, the responsible brothers should have a talk with him. Not to find out whether he can be received, but to hear from his own lips that he wants from now on to ‘walk together with us’. We have to know from both sides where we are at. That is not a matter of principle, but of practice. It is a matter of good order. Occasional reception is in most cases about brothers from another place. The brothers who have the trust of the assembly will, as mentioned before, try to get some information about him from the place where he lives. If there is an assembly in that place, then they will contact the local correspondent. In case the believer has definitely decided to walk ‘with us’, then we direct him to the assembly in the place where he lives, so that matters can be arranged locally.
Encouragement
We allow believers from ‘other’ circles to participate in the service because they meet the three requirements [see page 9]. We ought to do this on account of the unity of the body. The order and discipline of God’s house do not exclude these ‘visitors’. Thus we preserve the unity of the Spirit.
Then, and then only, we can ask God with boldness that He may open the eyes of the believer for the manner of gathering according to the Scriptures. That is the way believers were received in the past and this one time experience was enough to convince them of the biblical principle and manner of gathering. Would the Lord not want to work this out in our days? Certainly, the evidences are still there, even though they are few! But then it is up to us to act in all sincerity, and also in full confidence according to the principles we have found in God’s Word and not let these become ineffective through human considerations.
To take a biblical stand and to apply correct rules is splendid, but it is not the essential. The main point is that the assembly life is fresh and real. A visitor should experience that all who are present are there for the Lord. He should feel accepted in the fellowship. It might actually be very important to write once about our personal life with the Lord and our fellowship with each other. Sometimes I think that a change in mentality should take place among us. We should put less emphasis on the outward things and more on the inward and essentials of our christian life and of our assembling.
And what about those quotations?
In the beginning I quoted a number of verses from the Old Testament that refer to defilement and are connected with our topic [see page 7]. These are raised as objections to receive believers from other circles at the Lord’s Supper. I want to deal with these quotations in another publication. Yet I would like to say something about it in a general way.
First of all, we should realize that situations in the Old Testament must only be used as illustrations of what the New Testament teaches. We should never base a teaching or a course of action on data from the Old Testament only, because we are then left to arbitrary applications.
Secondly we have to be extremely careful with making applications. In the Old Testament we find that someone was unclean (in a cultic sense) by just touching unclean things. We do not find anything like it in the New Testament, it is always pointing to the inward influence: be it that one joins in the sin of others or that one is indifferent to it. A clear example of an application is found in Haggai 2:15. Here, in verses 13 and 14, we see what the Lord means with touching. The state of their heart was defiled and therefore what Israel sacrificed was defiled.
Thirdly we should realize that all conclusions about ‘sheer outward defilement’ run stuck on the above quoted verses, Rev3:4 and 18:4,5 [see pages 8 and 9]. The believers in Sardis were part of the assembly there. There was at that time only one assembly. Yet God says that they have not soiled their clothes. They had no part in the dead condition and were therefore not defiled. The same goes for the believers in Babylon. Whether they should have left Babylon sooner is of course another matter, but up to that moment they had no fellowship with the sins of Babylon. If they would stay while the sins were apparently piling up to heaven, then that would make them guilty and they would have fellowship with her sins and therefore also perish with her. The example of Lot is of value here. He should never have taken residence in Sodom and should have left from there long ago. Up till now however he was tormented in his righteous soul [2Pet2:8]. Had he stayed however, he would have been found guilty and would have perished with Sodom.
The most difficult way
Two of the three standpoints I put forward are easy. If we receive only believers who ‘regularly’ visit the meetings, we are never confronted with decisions that touch the conscience. There is nothing to examine. We only receive believers that belong to our own group; others are refused.
Easy indeed, but then the revival of 1830 and all that resulted from it, has been futile. The point at that time was indeed, if in the midst of a divided christendom, there was a basis to come together as believers and thereby express the unity of the body of Christ and the unity of the Spirit. This basis was found by accepting one another as believers, apart from ecclesiastical institutions human ordinances and the like. If that principle is abandoned and christians are refused who are well known and have a good reputation and only members of one’s ‘own group’ are received, then the divided christendom is alas increased with one more group. This is an easy, but in essence a sectarian way. The other standpoint is also easy: everyone who enters and expresses to be a christian is received and takes his place at his own responsibility. This way one shirks the responsibility to take care of the holiness of the Lord’s house.
The biblical standpoint to really assemble according to the principles of the body and that of the house, is difficult. It requires searching, it requires spiritual wisdom, it requires dependence on the Lord. It is the most difficult, but in my sincere conviction, really the biblical way.
I want to underline once more, that the main thought must be that we receive all believers who do not have fellowship with the sins of other believers through direct contact. If we keep to that, we do not have to be anxious for ‘defilement’ and we can gather trusting in the Lord’s approval in dependence of Him and to His honour.