Introduction
We might be tempted to despair as we consider
the enfeebled state of those who claim to be holding to the true
idea of fellowship in a fractured Christian profession. Indeed, we
would be more than justified in asking whether those who claim to be
holding to ‘non–sectarian’ principles are really any less
‘sectarian’ than those who openly advocate the existence of a
variety of ‘churches’ to suit every taste. Is it not ironic that
acting on supposedly ‘non–sectarian’ lines seems only to have served
to add to the number of sects existing? And is it right that, with
depressing regularity, each “new lump” (1 Cor. 5: 7)—or what is
presumed to be such—inevitably divides until eventually nothing is
left? Surely a doubt must be raised in the minds of the “spiritual”
(Gal. 6: 1) as to whether the course being pursued is the right one?
At the very least a fresh examination of the Scriptures seems called
for. I shall begin then by examining what the Scriptures have to say
about sects,
denominations and
schisms.
Sects and Denominations
The concept of a
sect is not confined to
Christianity. We read in the Scriptures of the sect of the Sadducees
and the sect of the Pharisees (see Acts 5: 17; 15: 5) and even
Christianity itself was once considered to be only another sect of
Judaism (see Acts 24: 5, 14; 28: 22). In our day, the word
sect or
heresy (Greek:
αιρεσις)
has acquired theological baggage, but in the NT it simply means a
school of opinion. At
Corinth, the disunity was so bad that Paul had to say that “there
must also be sects among you, that the approved” (that is, those who
refused to become involved in the formation of parties) “may become
manifest among you” (1 Cor. 11: 19; see also 1 Cor. 1: 11–13). Peter
speaks of a more sinister development, whereby false teachers would
get into the Assembly (or Church), bringing with them “destructive
heresies” (2 Pet. 2: 1)—schools of opinion that take their adherents
away from the apostolic faith. However, in NT language,
αιρεσις
need not be accompanied by false doctrine. The
αιρετκος
or heretic (see Tit. 3: 10) is simply one who seeks a following,
either for himself or another.
Doctrine
may be used to that end, but the root problem is
party–spirit.
Fundamentally, sectarianism is a work of the flesh (see Gal. 5: 20)
in which the human will is active. In this connection, it is
significant that
αιρεσις
is
derived from the verb
airew,
choose, since
Christianity does not present the believer with options. He is not
at liberty to
choose his doctrines,
his leaders or his companions. It was for that reason that the Roman
saints, despite their differences, were exhorted to “receive ye one
another” (Rom. 15: 7)—a Scripture, incidentally, that refers to
coolness in relationships within the Assembly and not, as commonly
thought, with reception into fellowship.
Not every Christian group is a sect, however.
The established church in England, for example, does not easily fit
within the definition because it is manifestly
not a single school
of opinion but an alliance of disparate beliefs. Properly speaking,
it is a
denomination, a word
derived from Latin meaning a named autonomous group within
Christendom. A denomination need not have strong opinions about
anything. Furthermore, if
any group of
believers take on a corporate identity, then, whatever they may
argue, they are essentially a denomination. By contrast, God
recognises
only one corporate
body in the present dispensation (Israel being set aside)—His
Assembly—and, that being so, it follows that Christians should bring
their thoughts into accord with His. The fact that the NT speaks of
assemblies in the plural—as with the “assemblies of Judaea” (Gal. 1:
22)—is no support for denominationalism. These assemblies were
simply the local representation of “the assembly of God” (v13), it
being impractical for every Christian in the world to meet in one
place. Similarly, there is no contradiction between “[there is] one
body” (Eph. 4: 4)—and “ye are Christ’s body (1 Cor. 12: 27) for the
lack of the definite article in Greek makes it
characteristic—Corinth was representative of the whole. The public
breakdown in the professing church has not altered these truths one
jot, and the saints must seek to abide by them.
Schisms
Leaving aside
denomination then as an unscriptural
term, it might be thought that that a
school of opinion or
sect (at least as presented in the
Bible) refers to division in spirit, while
schism is an
actual, physical rupture. However, this is not how the Word of God
presents things. The Greek word for schism (skisma)
is derived from the verb
skizw
which means split
or tear,
and thus has the sense of dividing what was previously whole. While
Paul’s desire for the Corinthians was that “there be not among you
divisions” (skisma),
he had also heard that when they came together in assembly “there
exist divisions” (skisma)
“among you” (1 Cor. 1: 10; 11: 18; my
emphasis). However, despite “each one in eating takes his
own supper before
[others]” (see v21), it could not be said that Corinth was
formally divided,
for Paul addressed “the
assembly of God which is in Corinth” (see 1 Cor. 1: 2; my emphasis).
The same informal division is seen among the Jews in John’s Gospel
(see John 7: 43; 9: 16; 10: 19). The division referred to in Rom.
16: 17 is a different Greek word (dicostasia),
but again, the sense is not a formal rupture. It was the faithful
who were to “turn away” from those agitating
dicostasia
in Rome—which would hardly make sense if an
actual split had already occurred. Thus a
sect or
school of opinion
may lead to a schism
in the Christian company, but such a tear is not necessarily a
complete breach.
It is also a mistake to think that
excommunication (as defined by Scripture) is necessarily schismatic.
In 1 Cor. 10: 32, mankind is divided into just three groups: Jews,
Greeks (or the nations) and the Assembly of God. More specifically,
there is only a “within” and a “without” (1 Cor. 5: 12, 13) in
relation to the Assembly—as already noted, the NT knows nothing of
denominations. In NT times if a professing believer was disciplined
and put outside the fellowship of the Assembly, then the offender
was to be to those remaining “as one of the nations and a
tax–gatherer” (Matt. 18: 17). He was no longer viewed as one of
their own, and thus the unity of the
Assembly was preserved. The “whole
lump” (1 Cor. 5: 6) remained, though having acted to “purge out”
(ekkaqairω)
“the old leaven”, it could be called “new” (v7). Such united action
by the Assembly in its character as the house of God is impossible
today, and individuals may have to act on their own responsibility
and purify
(ekkaqairω)
themselves (see 2
Tim. 2: 21) by separating from what is unclean. There is this
difference, however: there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that
the faithful believer can get out of what is now a “great house”
(v20)—he can only separate himself from the vessels “to dishonour”
in that house. This in turn puts a severe limitation on any
proposition for a few to act together today
on the principle
of 1 Cor. 5—for that Scripture clearly envisages a far deeper
exclusion than is now practicably possible when unity in the
Christian profession is long gone. It is not just a question of
being unable to celebrate communion with the excluded individual (as
some appear to think), but of treating them as actually
outside the Christian profession.
If this seems drastic, then that is because the procedure was only
to be used in drastic cases. To take the view that the wicked person
is only removed from ‘among ourselves’ is inherently sectarian.
Actually, most of the trouble among God’s people does not justify
such severe action, and generally relates to differences of opinion
(note that word), often over technicalities. Most could be solved
with a little more grace, humility and patience, but where the
differences are irreconcilable, then a quiet and unpretentious
cessation of fellowship ‘for conscience sake’ seems most in keeping
with the character of the times in which we live. It is impossible
to point out the Assembly today as a public body, and my being ‘in
fellowship’ or ‘not in fellowship’ with another believer may have
nothing to say about his being “within” or “without” (1 Cor. 5: 12,
13) in the sense that Scripture uses the terms.
Having thus defined
sects,
denominations and
schisms,
we now need to consider three expressions that Scripture uses that
will aid our understanding of how to walk in a
genuine ‘non–sectarian’ way:
one body,
one faith and
one Spirit.
One Body
Those who are unashamedly sectarian in outlook
can only pay lip service to the doctrine that “the body is one and
has many members” (1 Cor. 12: 12). Why? Because it is evident that
every
believer, by virtue of being a member of the body of Christ, is
“called into [the] fellowship” of God’s “Son Jesus Christ our Lord”
(1 Cor. 1: 9), and God does not recognise any other fellowship.
However, some, having grasped this truth, have added to it (always a
dangerous practice), and claim that they are actually ‘gathered
on the ground of the one body’. This sounds fine, but this form of
words is not found in the Bible. Unscriptural terms tend to lead to
unscriptural practice, and if the truth of the one body is made the
sole basis of fellowship, then you are duty bound to accept every
professing Christian without qualification—irrespective of low
morals or bad doctrine. Certainly the fact that there is “one body”
(Eph. 4: 4) should prevent fellowship from being denied to true
believers simply on the basis that “he follows not with us” (Luke 9:
49), but nor should it be used as a licence to associate with
everyone who professes Christ. The second epistle of John warns that
believers may be identified with the most antichristian of doctrines
simply by allowing their natural good–naturedness to overreach
itself (see v11). God holds such to “partake” (koinonew)
in the wicked works of the false teacher and that being so, it is
inconceivable that the Assembly should associate with them. Similar
truth is taught elsewhere: “ye cannot
drink [the] Lord’s cup, and [the] cup of demons: ye
cannot partake of
[the] Lord’s table, and of [the] table of demons” (my emphasis, 1
Cor. 10: 21). The two fellowships are mutually exclusive. Thus while
the “one body” (Eph. 4: 4) is a useful corrective against both
denominationalism and sectarianism, by
itself it will not give you the
Scriptural idea of fellowship.
That is why a close association has been
forged by some Bible teachers between ‘gathering on the ground of
the one body’ and what is known as ‘gathering to the Lord’s name’:
“For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am
I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18: 20). However, it is clear from
the context that this verse is about two or three saints coming
together to pray (perhaps not even in a formal ‘prayer meeting’) and
that any ecclesiastical connection is overstated. Certainly the
Assembly is mentioned in verse 17, and implied in verse 18, but the
word again
that commences verse 19 suggests that the subject being taken up
there, while related, is not exactly the same as what has preceded.
Nor can the fact that a similar expression occurs in a distinctly
ecclesiastical setting in 1 Cor. 5: 4 mean that constraints can be
imposed on what is to be understood by Matt. 18: 20. Despite this, a
very great deal has been built on this one verse, even to the
conceit of imagining that ‘gathering in my name’ is an
exclusive
position belonging only to certain Christians—rather like the “I of
Christ” of 1 Cor. 1: 12. By this means the Lord’s presence is taken
away from any not in the self–appointed company—even if it is two or
three believers gathered round the bed of the sick or dying!
There is no doubt, of course, that any true
realisation of fellowship will involve gathering
unto the Lord’s name.
The mistake has been in the failure to understand that Matt. 18: 20
refers to a spiritual state
in those gathered, and that there can be no gathering to the Lord’s
name simply by belonging to a particular company of Christians. The
use of the Lord’s name
implies His absence as the rejected One, and to gather to that
despised name implies that those who do so have made Him the focus
of their honour and attention. In response, He has promised to grace
them with His spiritual presence. The strange idea of some that this
means that the Lord is obligated
to respond to a collective act of ‘breaking bread’ is
abhorrent—certainly He keeps His promises, but those promises have
spiritual conditions attached. Of course all sorts of
unsubstantiated
claims may be made about spirituality, but
Scripture never leaves us to go on intangibles alone—as is
demonstrated by Matt. 18: 20 itself. Hence where is the proof in
this particular instance that the two or three are gathered to the
Lord’s name, and that He is in the midst of them? The answer is in
the previous verse: “Whatsoever it may be that they shall ask, it
shall come to them from my Father who is in [the] heavens” (v19).
The Lord’s presence, in this case, is demonstrated by answered
prayer—an objective fact.
Occupation with objective facts leads to the subject of:
One Faith
That there is only “one
faith” (Eph. 4: 5) only serves to underline the critical importance
of what we
profess to believe. Faith here refers not to the disposition of
trusting, but to the objective facts in which trust is placed—“the
matters fully believed among us” (Luke 1: 1) and the form of
teaching “into which ye were instructed” (Rom. 6: 17). There can be
no gathering to the Lord’s name if we “have gone astray” (2 Tim. 2:
18) as to the truth, and have wilfully let slip “sound teaching”
(Tit. 2: 1). How could the Lord sanction that with His presence? The
Lord’s commendation to Philadelphia was that they had “kept my word,
and hast not denied my name” (Rev. 3: 8).
Now when Jude wrote to the saints exhorting
them to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered” (Jude v3),
this was against a background of “certain men” who, despite being
adrift on both the gospel and the person of Christ, had got into the
fellowship of the Assembly “unnoticed” (v4). Now if they got in
unnoticed,
then it is obvious that to the undiscerning they must have at least
appeared
to be sound in the faith. This kind of reckless naivety in reception
is one extreme. The other extreme is sectarianism, when fellowship
is made conditional on compliance with a particular line of
teaching—often under the presumption that the favoured teaching is
synonymous with “the faith once delivered” (v3). Such a definition
of fellowship is incompatible with Scripture because “If we walk in
the light as he
is in the light, we have fellowship with one another” (1 John 1: 7).
This is not a question of some Christians being in the light, and
others being in darkness, for all
believers are “sons of light and sons of day” (1 Thess. 5: 5). Thus
a believing stranger (see 3 John v5) can be met on the street and
immediately there is a measure of communion. Of course all who claim
to be “once darkness, but now light in [the] Lord”, are responsible
to “walk as children of light” (Eph. 5: 8), and so to develop links
with strangers requires a measure of wisdom. It is easy to associate
too quickly, and make ourselves partakers “in others’ sins” (1 Tim.
5: 22). However, the wisdom employed must be “from above” (James 3:
17) and not our own, for there is often a tendency to make demands
of our fellow–Christians that Scripture itself does not make.
Fellowship in the Bible is not founded on schools of opinion but
apostolic doctrine. Thus the first Christians “persevered in the
teaching and fellowship of the apostles” (Acts 2: 42)—teaching and
fellowship being linked, but with teaching taking precedence. This
is not to say that unless there is the same understanding about
everything then there can be no fellowship, for we are all at
different stages of spiritual growth—the “fathers” are in advance of
the “little children” (1 John 2: 13). Even the apostle Peter speaks
of Paul’s doctrine as containing things which “are hard to be
understood” (2 Pet. 3: 16). What is plain, however, is that the
apostle’s teaching and no other
teaching must form the doctrinal basis
of true Christian fellowship. Some may be ignorant of large parts of
this teaching, but that is where the “work of [the] ministry” comes
in (the practical service of gift in the body of Christ) “until we
all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son
of God” (Eph. 4: 12, 13). Hence to insist on unity of faith
now is to make
demands of the ignorant and unlearned that they cannot possibly
meet, and leads to persons either being unjustly excluded from
fellowship or pressured into adopting positions beyond where they
are in their souls. What can
be insisted on is that “the faith once delivered” (Jude v3)
must be the track
on which all are travelling. Some may be further along than others,
but the rails must be the same.
It would be foolish to imagine, however, that
Biblical orthodoxy, while vital, is the
essence of
fellowship. The assembly at Sardis had a name to live, but were
spiritually dead (see Rev. 3: 1), and there are many similar
examples today. When Paul wrote to the Philippians he spoke of a
“fellowship of [the] Spirit” (Phil. 2: 1) and this leads to the
contemplation of:
One Spirit
Cold orthodoxy neither glorifies God nor helps
man. Fellowship in Scripture is a vital thing that is focused on a
person: hence we have been called into the fellowship of
God’s Son, Jesus Christ our Lord
(see 1 Cor. 1: 9). Sadly, in rejecting dry
formalism, many have fallen into an opposite error, and have made
the mistake of thinking that where Christians are utterly focused on
the Holy Spirit, then it is in those conditions that you will get a
fellowship of the Spirit. This sounds logical, but that is the
trouble with it, because it is based on human reasoning and not
revelation. Revelation teaches that the Holy Spirit will glorify
Christ rather than Himself (see John 15: 26; 16: 14)—hence the
clearest evidence of truly spiritual fellowship is that
Christ is in the
centre. This is why the apostolic fellowship which John presented to
the saints was founded on “that which we have seen and heard” (1
John 1: 3)—the Lord Himself. Where there is truly a “fellowship of
[the] Spirit” (Phil. 2: 1), the emphasis is on the effect produced
in and among the saints by the Holy Spirit rather than the Holy
Spirit Himself (hence the absence of the definite article in
original Greek of the verse quoted).
That effect is a shared devotion
towards the Son of God who has laid down His life for His friends—as
in: “the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not [the] communion”
(koinonia)
“of the blood of the Christ? The bread which
we break, is it not [the] communion of the body of the Christ?” (1
Cor. 10: 16, 17).
Now Christians are
exhorted to use “diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:
3) which shows that it is a unity can be easily lost (or replaced by
what is false). When was the unity of the Spirit formed? On the day
of Pentecost when “in [the power of] one Spirit” God’s people were
“baptised into one body” and were “given to drink of one Spirit” (1
Cor. 12: 13). One body and one Spirit are therefore linked, for the
unity of the body is every believer in one company on earth, while
the unity of the Spirit is the power that binds them together in
“the uniting bond of peace” (Eph. 4: 3). The divine conception was
that the unity of the body ought to have been ever reflected in the
unity of the Spirit, but in proportion to what has been ceded to the
flesh, so spiritual unity has been lost, for the flesh and the
Spirit are “opposed one to the other” (Gal. 5: 17). In the light of
this, our business as saints is not to attempt to make a new unity
but, as recognising the unity already made, to seek to work it out
practically (so far as is possible). This will not be easy, for the
relative simplicity of NT times is long gone, and a multiplicity of
intractable issues, both historical and doctrinal, now impede our
way.
There is also the very real danger of limiting
our thoughts to simply who should be ‘in’ and who should be ‘out’,
as if fellowship is summed up entirely by a kind of ‘breaking bread’
membership. This ignores many of the fundamental features that
attain to a true “unity of the Spirit” and which provide the context
to Eph. 4: 3, 4. Thus in verses 1 and 2, the Ephesian saints are
exhorted to walk worthy of the calling wherewith they have been
called “with all
lowliness and meekness” (my emphasis). This raises the bar of real
fellowship very high. Lowliness is to think nothing of self, while
meekness is to have no interest in self. It does not take very great
imagination to see that such a spirit is very conducive to good
relationships among saints. Hence the lowliness and meekness are to
be accompanied “with longsuffering” and “bearing with one another in
love”. Longsuffering implies the absence of a hasty, judgmental
spirit, while bearing with one another
in love (and the qualification is
vital) refers to that patience with others that only comes from true
affection. The sad history of God’s people (both ancient and
modern), is a very defective record indeed when measured against
this standard. Certainly fellowship involves the pursuit of
righteousness (see 2 Tim. 2: 22), but if righteousness is pursued
alone then “faith, love, peace” are inevitable casualties along the
way. It is only as “holding the truth in love” (Eph. 4: 15)), that
we shall not “grieve the Holy Spirit of God” with which we “have
been sealed for [the] day of redemption” (v30). Hence: “let all
bitterness, and heat of passion, and wrath, and clamour, and
injurious language, be removed from you, with all malice; and be to
one another kind, compassionate, forgiving one another, so as God
also in Christ has forgiven you” (vs. 30–32). Such words need no
commentary.
Conclusion
It only remains to ask reader and writer alike to
honestly reconsider his conception of fellowship in the light of the
solemn testimony of God’s Word. A sectarian spirit is so very close
to each of us, and we ever need to heed the practical exhortation of
Phil. 2: 5: “let this mind be in you which [was] also in Christ
Jesus”. May it truly be so!
