Introduction
If
there is one thing that we Christians have failed the Lord in, it is
in maintaining unity, and we can only be ashamed when we survey the
innumerable sects, denominations, fellowships, churches, meetings
and groups that now make up the Christian profession. As believers,
we have
all been “called into
[the] fellowship” of God’s Son “Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:
9), but this is not apparent from the confusion we see around us.
Clearly, something has gone badly wrong. Nor is it a particularly
recent phenomenon, for division happened very early in the history
of the Assembly. The apostle Paul criticised the Corinthian saints,
saying “when ye come together in assembly, I hear there exist
divisions among you, and I partly give credit [to it]. For there
must also be sects among you, that the approved may become manifest
among you” (1 Cor. 11: 18, 19). The divided condition was made clear
when they assembled, such that “when ye come therefore together into
one place, it is not to eat [the] Lord’s Supper. For each one in
eating takes his own
supper before [others], and one is hungry and another drinks to
excess” (vs. 20, 21). Such a coming together was clearly “for the
worse” (v17). Division is really the alienation of heart between
saints, but given time, it crystallizes around opinions and leaders,
and a sect is formed. Hence Paul, on hearing about the divisions in
Corinth, said that there “must also be sects among you” (the word
sect (hairesis)
is derived from the Greek verb
to choose and means
faction or
school of opinion. It
involves the will of man selecting something around which the
adherents can coalesce—in essence ignoring the unity that God has
made). The formation of sects indicates that there is open rupture
among the saints—although they may, of course, be nominally still
‘together’ (as indicated by Paul’s repeated use of “among you” in
vs. 18, 19). However, the manifestation of sects in the assembly
had, in turn, its own effect: “For there must also be sects among
you,
that the approved may become
manifest among you” (v19, my emphasis). Who then, are the
approved referred to here?
The
Approved
The sectarians made themselves obvious by what
they said (“each of you says, I am of Paul, and
I of Apollos, and
I of Cephas, and
I of Christ”—1 Cor. 1:
12) but the approved were only brought to light by the attitude and
actions of others. Put simply, when sectarianism raised its partisan
flag, it necessarily revealed those who were not prepared to rally
to it. Indeed, if any doubt the seriousness of sectarianism they
only need to reflect on the similarity in Greek between
hairesis (sect), and
hairetikos (heretic). A
sect is a work of the flesh (see Gal. 5: 20 where
hairesis is rendered
“schools of opinion”), and is therefore evidence that its proponents
are “carnal” (1 Cor. 3: 3). The “approved” by contrast are clearly
the spiritual remnant in the place (there may even be an element of
sarcasm in the apostle’s language, for the party-minded no doubt
imagined that
they were the
approved). Being approved is not, of course, a question of seeing
oneself and those with me as better than others (that would be
self-approval), for what Paul is referring to is approval from God.
Sectarianism is now, of course, effectively
‘normalised’ among Christians. Often the first question we are asked
by strangers relates to what Christian group we belong to, and some
even go as far as to say that the plethora of sects are a blessing
from God, ensuring that each Christian has a spiritual ‘home’ that
suits his particular needs and desires! That, sadly, is the wisdom
of the world operating in the house of God. This being the
situation, “the approved” ought to be more obvious than ever.
However, being truly unsectarian is not just a matter of claiming
the title, for some who characterise themselves that way are, in
reality, just as party-minded as those who openly advocate a
factional approach. How then are “the approved” of God to be
distinguished then from those who are merely self-approved? The
answer, as always, lies in the Bible.
Our
Calling
The most important characteristic of “the
approved” is a genuine belief in what the Christian has been called
to. Paul exhorts the saints to “walk worthy of the calling wherewith
ye have been called” (Eph. 4: 1). Now this exhortation is preceded
by the word “therefore”, which carries us back to where the apostle
speaks of the “hope of his calling” (Eph. 1: 18), and then in detail
how Jew and Gentile are brought together into “one new man” (Eph. 2:
15), reconciled “both in one body to God by the cross” (v16) and
through Christ have “access by one Spirit to the Father” (v18).
Hence when Paul exhorts the saints to “walk
worthy of the calling wherewith ye have been called” (Eph.
4: 1, my emphasis) he certainly has all this in mind. The oneness he
describes is as far removed from factionalism as it is possible to
get. But how is this wonderful unity maintained? By enforcing a
military-style order? No! “With all lowliness and meekness, with
long-suffering, bearing with one another in love; using diligence to
keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. [There
is] one body and one Spirit, as ye have been also called in one hope
of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and
Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all” (vs.
2-6). Thus, there is a spirit to be seen in the saint that is in
keeping with the divine revelation—a brotherly attitude that
necessarily accompanies a true understanding of the oneness to which
we have been called. This spirit is what marks “the approved”—not
through natural amiability, but because the Holy Spirit has brought
their hearts into correspondence with what has been revealed. That
was why the Ephesians could not help but be characterised by love
“towards
all the saints” (Eph.
1: 15, my emphasis). By contrast, while a factionalist may love
those who share his opinions, he cannot be said to walk worthy of
the calling because he only has in view
some rather than
all.
Those who are on the lines of “I
am of Paul, and I of
Apollos” (1 Cor. 1: 12) will never feel the shame of the public
breakdown in the same way as a saint who has properly understood
what all Christians have been called to. We have not been called
into a religious society that man has put together but into the
fellowship of
God’s Son (see 1 Cor.
1: 9). Why accept anything less? Here we have the one true
fellowship, to which all Christians are called, and in which the
Lord’s will is the only will. Is this not Biblical Christianity?
Sadly, most regard 1 Cor. 1: 9 in such a mystical way that it is
stripped of all practical value. Thus, when Paul pointedly asks “Is
the Christ divided?” (1 Cor. 1: 13), most would answer ‘No’, but
then struggle to explain the discrepancy between the accepted
sectarianism of the day and Paul’s charge to all the saints in
Corinth to be “perfectly united” (v10). It certainly cannot be right
that some Christians know more about believers in distant places
than they do about those in their own city!
It should be no surprise, of course, that there
is so little sense of the Assembly as a divine unity among
Christians generally when the prevailing attitude is ‘supermarket
Christianity’. The determining factor in ‘finding a church’ is
personal preference, which feeds a very fickle and selfish frame of
mind—and the ‘churches’ have responded in kind by behaving as if
they were in the marketplace, adapting their ‘product’ to suit
demand. This is often coupled with excessive congregationalism, in
which the majority take a passive role as receivers of what a small
active minority provide. The tendency of this arrangement is for the
connection to the providers to be strong (‘I go where I like what I
hear’), but the links among the passive receivers to be weak.
Cliques there may well be, but a true state of fellowship where all
saints are gathered together around a divine centre (see Matt. 18:
20; Heb. 2: 12) cannot be known. Again, the “unity of the faith”
(Eph. 4: 13) is often made the basis of fellowship, ignoring the
fact that this particular form of unity is prefaced by the words
“until we all arrive”—for some will have made more progress than
others. The charge left to the faithful is instead to use “diligence
to keep the unity of
the Spirit in the
uniting bond of peace” (Eph. 4: 3, my emphasis), which encompasses
all levels of spiritual development and does not require new
converts or simple believers to sign up to things they do not
understand or have the faith for. As is well-known, the Lord Jesus
was very particular when here on earth about ensuring a part for the
little children. Keeping the unity of the Spirit also has nothing to
do with belonging to a particular ecclesiastical group, but embraces
all those genuine saints not leavened by moral or doctrinal evil.
How this works out practically in a broken day is another question,
but those who support, who acquiesce with or who are indifferent to
factionalism are, by definition, striving to keep
some other sort of
unity.
The
Character of the Day
Sometimes the impetus for the formation of a
new sect is a desire to remain faithful to the faith once delivered
to the saints in the face of indifference or resistance and thus yet
another company is set up to replace or rival the old. Indeed, some
tell us that the existing denominations are so far removed from the
original ideal that we must “get back to Pentecost’. However, while
superficially attractive, such statements do not bear the test of
Scripture. We certainly need to get back to Biblical principles, but
can we actually get back to everything as it is set out in the early
chapters of Acts? I do not believe so—anymore than Israel could get
back to the kingdom after the Babylonian captivity. A simple example
will illustrate what I mean: in the first epistle to Timothy the
apostle explains the qualification required for eldership, among
which are that the candidates are to be “apt to teach” (1 Tim. 3:
2). Now this exact same expression (didaktikos
in Greek) also occurs in 2 Tim. 2: 24, where the apostle says that
the “bondman of [the] Lord ought not to contend, but be gentle
towards all; apt to teach”. In the first epistle, it is the elders
that are required to have some ability in teaching, while in the
second epistle, the situation has so changed, that it is the
faithful servant of the Lord, whether an elder or not, who is to be
“apt to teach”. Clearly, what is so evidently organised in 1 Timothy
has collapsed (at least as regards being a true testimony to
Christ), and in 2 Timothy responsibility now falls very heavily on
the individual saint.
Of course, many Christians do not see this
difference, and seek to re-erect, to a greater or lesser degree,
what God has allowed to be cast down. They set up something
collective, and insist that others recognise the company that they
have formed. It is impossible to imagine that “the approved” could
go along with such ideas. It makes no difference whether this new
group is close to Scripture or not,
for the problem lies in the
fact that an additional body has been produced at all.
People who look on their ‘meetings’ as having some sort of corporate
status have not grasped the character of the day in which we live.
The aged apostle’s answer to the public breakdown was simply for
godly individuals to pursue “righteousness, faith, love, peace, with
those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Tim. 2: 22).
Christian blessings can be enjoyed together, but there is no new
body. Our walk together is to be in accord with the fellowship of
God’s Son (that is, we abide by its terms), and we can certainly
enjoy a genuine “fellowship of [the] Spirit” (Phil. 2: 1) together,
but we are neither
a fellowship nor
the fellowship.
Walking together bestows no corporate status: that belongs to the
Assembly alone. Furthermore, 2 Tim. 2: 22 needs to be followed in
reality. When the reasons for being together are mainly about shared
history, family connections or conservative views, then the union is
really sectarian—particularly if ‘outsiders’ struggle to find
acceptance or understand the culture.
We have
Sinned
The very nature of sectarianism means it has a
tendency to feed a sense of superiority (or
self-approval), and
to leave the blame for the public state of the Christian profession
with others. By contrast, where there has been a genuine rejection
of party-spirit, this will be accompanied by a deep sense of the
collective breakdown as if it were our own individual failure. This
is more than the admission of my own role in divisions among saints
(if, indeed, I bear any personal guilt). Instead, having grasped the
essential oneness of all God’s people, I confess the sin of the
whole public
breakdown as if it were mine own. It cannot be otherwise if I accept
the truth of the one body. If an illustration of the sort of
confession is required, there is none better than how Daniel prayed
regarding the nation of which he was a member (see Daniel 9). Of all
those exiled in Babylon, Daniel might be supposed to have been in
the least need of confession of sin. He was a holy and righteous
man, God-fearing in every way. Furthermore, he was carried away at
such a young age from Jerusalem that the judgment from God which had
fallen could not be blamed on anything for which he was responsible.
Despite this, Daniel takes the place of humble confession before
God, thereby becoming the expression of the people in their
disobedience. Though personally guiltless in relation to the
national sin, Daniel speaks of “my confession” (Dan. 9: 4), and four
times he confesses “we have sinned” (vs 5, 8, 11, 15). So far as the
record of Scripture goes, he was the only Jew that prayed in this
way. Now Daniel’s people had gone into captivity because they had
“committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even
turning aside from thy commandments and from thine ordinances”
(v5)—and this, frankly, is not altogether dissimilar to the sins of
the Assembly (who, it must be said, are the recipients of far
greater light from God than Israel ever was). Do we seriously
imagine then that we have not turned aside from the commandments and
the ordinances of the Lord and His apostles? Have we, for example,
lived up to the Lord’s commandment to “love one another, as I have
loved you” (John 15: 12)? Have we stood “firm in one spirit, with
one soul, labouring together in the same conflict with the faith of
the glad tidings” (Phil. 1: 27)? Have we been marked by “bowels of
compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, long-suffering;
forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any should
have a complaint against any; even as the Christ has forgiven you,
so also [do] ye” (Col. 3:
12, 13)? If even we think we have ourselves, it is clear that these
things have not marked the Lord’s people as they should. Therefore,
beloved, have we ever got on our knees and made
our confession, and
cried out to God ‘we
have sinned’? I am not talking merely about the history of things in
the limited circle of my acquaintance but the sins of the Assembly
as a whole, particularly in failing to maintain godly unity.
It is not enough to
keep oneself pure, vital though that is in itself. We are
individuals, but we are not independent units. We are members of
Christ’s body, and if there has been collective failure then it is
incumbent on every believer, even if personally clean, to confess
the sin of the whole as if it were his own. This is far more than
merely sorrowing over division, because it is possible to do that in
a detached and abstract way as an observer. If I am to be one of
“the approved”, I will confess as well as grieve, and it will be
my confession and
our sins.
Let
Your Heart Expand Itself
In choosing a ‘church’ (not something Scripture
ever asks us to do), believers are often swayed by gift. Gift is
important but in itself it will not give you the Assembly in its
true character. Corinth, for example, came “short in no gift” (1
Cor. 1: 7), but the apostle Paul had to tell them “ye
are straightened in your affections … let your heart also expand
itself” (2 Cor. 6: 12, 13, my emphasis). This statement is
all the more remarkable when the warning that follows is considered:
“be not diversely yoked with unbelievers” (v14). The plain
implication is that the Corinthians were wide-hearted beyond
Scriptural limits in relation to the world, but inadequate when it
came to the relationships that ought to exist among brethren in
Christ. Paul even had to take the saints to task for going to law
against each other (see 1 Cor. 6: 6-8). Can we be surprised that
there were divisions in Corinth? What truly binds saints together is
not gift, but love. How much unnecessary conflict could have been
avoided if love was in operation among brethren in Christ! As Peter
tells us: “but before all things having fervent love among
yourselves, because love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pet. 4: 8).
How sad to be straightened in our affections by
the constraints of party-spirit! The object of the Lord’s heart is
His Assembly—all His people—for He loves that body and has delivered
Himself up for it (see Eph. 5: 25). Enlargement of heart necessarily
takes in all the saints. If we are occupied with ourselves
(particularly in an ecclesiastical sense), then we really have lost
any true sense of the Assembly and have become merely a party.
It is facile to say that we grieve over
the fact that not all of God’s people are available to us, if it is
clearly evident that we intend to pursue such an insular path that
other believers may as well not exist. There are no ‘grades’ of
Christians, and if some are less important to us, then we can be
sure that we have lost the Lord’s mind, for it is certain that all
are equally important to Him. Certainly, the public scattering has
made loving all the saints that more difficult but it does not
excuse us from it. John writes “children, let us not love with word,
nor with tongue, but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3: 18)—“in deed”
because real love always
acts (even to the
laying down of one’s life for the brethren—see v16); “in
truth”—because we are not to allow any compromise of what is right
and Scriptural (see 1 John 5: 2). Some even appear to have lost
sight of the fact that gift is given “with a view to the edifying of
the body of Christ” (Eph. 4: 12) and not some smaller circle. It is
faithless to respond by saying that working these things out in
practice is just too difficult. Difficult it may be, but never
too difficult. If
Onesiphorus could seek out Paul very diligently (see 2 Tim. 1: 17)
and provide him with succour, then there is no excuse for you and I
not to seek out one or two of the Lord’s scattered sheep and enjoy
mutual encouragement. If you have a heart for Christ then you will
have a heart for His people. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that we
are to retreat in upon ourselves in order to ‘hold the position’ (it
is a nauseating conceit to imagine that this could even be our
unique responsibility). Separation from iniquity is imperative (see
2 Tim. 2: 19) but let us see that we do not slip into a modern
version of “the sect of the Pharisees” (Acts 15: 5), whose attitude
to the people of God generally can be seen in John 7: 49: “this
crowd, which does not know the law, are accursed”.
Conclusion
The question of sectarianism is a very real
one, and moreover, it is a question of the utmost seriousness. Each
of us,
individually, will
one day give an account of our actions to God, and this includes
whether we have used “diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit”
(Eph. 4: 3), or whether we have gone along with the factionalism now
‘normalised’ in Christendom. Let me put it very simply to you: Does
God count you among “the approved”?
