ASSEMBLY LETTERTS
First Letter
My dear Brother:—
It is upon my heart to write to
you freely and familiarly about some things affecting the practical state of
the gatherings, which the Lord (we may trust) is bringing into being in so many
places now, often in great weakness and isolation, separated by long distances
from one another, as on this immense continent of North America especially. The
weakness, if only realized, would be indeed matter for thanksgiving and an
occasion of real strength; and the isolation from other help should cast them
more immediately upon the Church's Head. I cannot speak then of felt weakness
as being really that, or lament that circumstances should be favourable to that
walk with God alone, which is what at all times the Lord has called His people
to. Still, these circumstances have their peculiar difficulties, and call for
some special consideration, as I think - some special attempt to minister to
the need by those who have in some measure felt it, and who, by their very
mistakes and failures, have been taught what they would desire others to learn
in a better way. That so much of what we speak of has been knowledge acquired
in this painful manner, may serve to free the writer from even the appearance
of self-conceit in communicating it.
Without further preface, then, let
me commence with some thoughts as to the gathering itself, which is indeed the
first consideration, and a matter of all importance. For this very reason its
beginning in any place is so critical a thing.
A bad constitution at the
beginning, just as in the physical condition of an individual, may lead to an
unhealthy state which may never be recovered from. Let me say, then, that the
first of all requisites for a true gathering to the Lord's Name, is that it be
of the Lord's making. You will understand that I do not mean by that merely
that those gathered together should be themselves the Lord's. That is a matter
of course, which I need not dwell on, for I am not now seeking to establish
what the Church of God is, or what the gathering to Christ's Name is: I assume
that as known and acknowledged by those I speak of. But I mean that then -
actual drawing together should be by the Spirit, working by the truth upon the
heart, and by nothing else.
I believe the very thought of the unity of
the Church of God may be unintelligently used to hinder this. That every
Christian (the maintenance of a Scriptural discipline being understood of
course) has a right to the Lord's Table, may become an argument for methods of
gathering which are quite unsuited to the days in which we live, and tend only
to produce confusion instead of what will glorify God.
For real
gathering the Holy Ghost must gather, and Christ therefore it is who must be
the attractive Object, for thus alone the Holy Ghost works. It is only
weakness, for instance, where a wife follows a husband into fellowship, or a
husband his wife, or children their parents, without personal exercise and
conviction. Or where pleasant companionship is the object even in divine
things. Or where people come in just because converted under one in fellowship;
or where one's personal blessing is the object sought. All these are motives
short of Christ Himself, and acting upon them should be as far as possible
discouraged. We cannot indeed refuse Christians their place upon this ground
only, but we can and ought to put them solemnly upon their responsibility to
act as to and under the Lord alone.
(Without "refusing" a person, an
assembly may well postpone the "receiving" until it is quite clear to do so. -
Ed.)
Intelligence as to more than fundamental truth we must not require.
(Intelligence in the truth is not the first thing, but singleness of
eye. - Ed.)
When the Church first began, and disciples came together to
break bread, the truth of the One Body was not yet known; and "babes" have
their place at the Father's board as well as full-grown sons. On the other
hand, profession is absolutely worthless except justified by the life; and we
have to remember that our rule for a day of failure is to purge ourselves from
the vessels to dishonour, and "follow righteousness, faith, love, peace, with
those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart."
We do not pretend to
judge who is who, as Christians; we do not pretend, in refusing fellowship, to
say that the person is not a Christian: "the Lord knoweth them that are His,"
not we. But we cannot associate with 'vessels to dishonour,' and be ourselves
"vessels to honour, sanctified and meet for the Master's use;" and we know the
pure-hearted by the righteousness, as well as faith and love, that we follow
with them. In days of common and easy profession, the test which is not imposed
by the circumstances amid which we move, must be only the more rigidly imposed
by those with whom "truth in the inward parts" is recognized as the Lord's
requirement.
And here let me insist a little - for there is need, - that
a most Scriptural test, and an important one, is that of one's associations.
Even the world has its proverbs bearing upon this. "Tell me who your companions
are, and I will tell you who you are," says one of them; and as an estimate of
moral character we recognize the truth of this. A man's moral level cannot be
much above that of his voluntary associations. Above all, where Christ is
denied or dishonoured, one who winks at this dishonour is plainly unfit for
communion with Himself.
Let me illustrate by an example. A freemason,
if a Christian, is not only yoked unequally with unbelievers, but still more
with those who purposely omit the Lord's Name out of their corporate prayers,
to accommodate Jews and unbelievers generally; he is openly linked with the
Lord's dishonour. The same may be said of those who sit down in communion with
it. The teaching of Scripture is that, "he that biddeth him Godspeed," or gives
him salutation, "is partaker of his evil deeds;" and that "if any one purge
himself from these (vessels to dishonour), he shall be a vessel unto honour" (2
John; 2 Timothy 2). Have we then any right to count those vessels unto honour,
who do not so purge themselves?
It is a question thus of practical walk,
this association; and as truly a matter of discipline, or of exclusion, as any
other. In these days in which "confederacy" is so leading a principle, it is
one of very solemn importance.
Now a word or two as to reception. It is
the act of the whole gathering in a place, just as much as is exclusion;
whether there be "two or three" gathered, or two or three hundred. This leads
to the practical necessity of submitting the name of any one to be received to
the whole gathering a sufficient time before reception, to allow all to know
and realize what they are doing. Practically it may be that there are a few who
have the confidence of the assembly, upon whom the work of visiting and enquiry
will usually devolve; but these ought never upon such ground to assume to act
for the assembly, nor can the assembly rightly rest their responsibility upon
these. Communication is a thing which concerns every individual; as to "receive
one another" must of necessity be individual. It has been objected that there
is no Scripture for making people wait a week or more, and it is quite true
that in that shape there is none. But every text which enforces our
responsibility as to our associations with others, enforces also the necessity
of giving opportunity to all to be of one mind in such a matter as this. And a
really godly person, who understands the reason of his being asked to wait to
proceed from care for the Lord's glory, and to have fellowship a real thing,
will be content to wait, if it were a month, rather than hinder this, nay, will
be only too glad to see this care practically exercised.
This touches
another point - the matter of introduction to fellowship, on the part of a
brother or more, for one occasion, as of a person accidently present, and known
by him to be a Christian. Ought such individual judgment to be imposed on an
assembly, without giving them time or opportunity to express their own mind
intelligently about it? It is my own clear and deliberate conviction that this
ought never be done, and I think full and Scriptural reason can be given for
it.
The right of a Christian to communion is not in question: the
question is who is to recognize the right? Is it the assembly, or is it the
individual? The two or three gathered to the Name of the Lord have His promise
to be with them; but they cannot transfer this to one or more among them acting
for the rest. If it be allowed to all to introduce, how many are there whose
judgment could not at all be trusted in a matter of the kind? If on the other
hand, it be only the privilege of a few to do so, an official class is set up,
very hard to define, impossible to be allowed to define themselves, and wholly
unknown to Scripture.
If it be said, this only applies to occasional,
not regular communion, I answer, if a person be recognized as entitled to
"break bread" for a single time, he cannot be rightly refused at any other;
except of course in a case where discipline has to be maintained, to which all
are equally subject who are at the table of the Lord. The place is the same for
all exactly, and reception is exactly the same also. If we admit the idea of
"occasional" communion, we should make provision for what is contrary to the
Lord's mind; for He certainly gives no permission to wander from His table. And
while we cannot prevent this, nor require intelligence as a pre-requisite where
the heart is really right with God, we cannot and may not on the other hand
ourselves admit the title to wander.
I have said all this, dear brother,
in so brief a way that I feel there is need to ask you not to mistake brevity
for dogmatism. I have indeed myself the strongest belief that what I have said
will stand the fullest test of the Word of God; and I trust and believe you
will not receive anything on my part, that the blessed Word does not
authenticate. Here, for the present, then, I close, though with much more upon
my mind, to which at a future time I may ask you to listen.
Letter Two
Home | Links | Literature