Wrested Scriptures (5) - "another Gospel"

It is often argued by some Christadelphians that any variation from the one true faith falls under this condemnation of Paul:

"If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:6-9)

This text is interpreted to mean that unless someone is preaching the one true faith in its entirety then they are preaching "another Gospel". It's argued, for example, that trinitarianism is "another Gospel". So too is heaven-going at death. Some Christadelphians go even further and accuse other Christadelphians of preaching "another Gospel" if they hold different views on the atonement, the nature of Christ, resurrectional responsibility, inspiration, divorce and remarriage, the extent of the Kingdom, or even the identity of Gog and Magog!

What did Paul mean when he wrote about those preaching "another Gospel"?

The best way to get an overview of Galatians is to read it through in one sitting, preferably in a modern version. The Message is excellent for this purpose, and it won't take long at all to read the whole letter. If you read Galatians this way you will notice that Paul is very single-minded and that he really has just one objective in writing this letter. There was only one issue that he wanted to deal with in this letter and he gets straight to the point in the opening verses.

Paul doesn't leave us in any doubt as to the problem: certain teachers from Jerusalem had visited the churches in Galatia and attempted to bring them under some of the rules and regulations of Judaism. Paul is very outspoken in his opposition to this "Judaizing" of Christianity and makes it very clear indeed that the Gospel he preached, and through which the Galatians were converted, was a message of freedom in Christ. He tells them again that we are saved by grace, and not through the keeping of any rules or regulations. He explains that any human efforts to please God and gain salvation through rituals, law-keeping and 'legalism' of any kind will end in failure. No less than seven times he emphasises the importance of grace.

In contrasting the false teachings of the Judaisers with the message he preached, Paul says "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (5:4). To abandon the Gospel of grace is "apostacy" - a fall from grace. He says that if righteousness could be gained any other way than by grace then "Christ died for nothing!" (2:20-21).

Right from the start of this letter Paul makes it clear that this is about grace versus legalism. He says that the Gospel of Christ which they first heard and embraced was about "the grace of Christ" but that now they were deserting this Gospel of grace and "are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all" (1:5-7).

So its really quite plain here that the "other Gospel" which was being preached was about legalism, rule-keeping and attempting to gain righteousness through "works of the law".

This explains why Paul says that "if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed". Later he said that "all who rely on observing the law are under a curse" (3:10). Legalism brings a curse on those who try to live by rule-keeping.

In earlier posts in this series I noted that many of these "wrested Scriptures" are used by the very people the texts are speaking about and given another meaning contrary to the one that was intended and turned against the believers. Paul wrote: "some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves" (2:4). Not surprisingly then this passage in Galatians 1:6-9 is also often used by legalists in their attempts to rob believers of their freedom in Christ and to bring them into bondage to a doctrinal creed, a style of worship, a manner of dressing, an organisational structure, or some other man-made way of practicing religion.

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (14)

What is "fellowship"? (6)

In the last post in this series I started looking at two questions:

1. What is it that "just happens" when believers gather together?
2. How can we make fellowship "just happen", or what can we do to facilitate it?

I showed from Acts 2:42-47 that for the first Christians "breaking bread" meant meeting in each others homes for meals - ordinary, regular, daily meals - and that for them "fellowship" meant sharing their material possessions as well as sharing an allegiance to Jesus as their Lord. This sharing-fellowship was solidly grounded in the teachings of Jesus.

A little later in Acts we find further confirmation that what was really fundamental to the "fellowship" of the early church or ekklesia was that they shared their possessions:

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

This passage has been misquoted, or only partially quoted, by those who say that the basis of unity is having "one mind" on doctrinal matters. They quote the words "all the believers were one in heart and mind" and argue that to be one "in mind" means to believe the same doctrines. Yet the words which immediately follow tell us clearly what the early believers understood by being one in heart and mind: "they shared everything they had". Those who argue for a doctrinal basis for unity will point to the next words ("the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus") and say that that is a doctrinal statement. Yet again they ignore what follows: "and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them". In other words, the resurrection inspired and empowered a graciousness among the believers which caused them to reach out to those in need and provide for them. The "apostles' doctrine" was about behaviour rather than dogma.

We encounter "breaking bread" on only two other occasions in the Acts, and then in Paul's letters we will see that it gets mentioned only in 1 Corinthians. The other New Testament writers don't mention it at all, with the possible exception of Jude's mention of the "love feasts" of the early church. It might seem strange that if Communion is such an important "sacrament" or "ordinance" that it hardly rates a mention in the New Testament.

So let's look first at the other mentions of "breaking bread" in the Acts, and then on to 1 Corinthians.

The second time a breaking of bread occurs in the Acts is in 20:7 where we read that "on the first day of the week we came together to break bread". This was in Troas and was the occasion when a young man, Eutychus, fell asleep in a window during a long sermon by Paul, falling to his death from the third story window. After Paul revived the young man "he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate" (v. 11). There is nothing here to tell us whether "to break bread" meant to have an ordinary meal or whether there was anything sacramental or eucharistic about it. In the absence of any further information we cannot draw any conclusions, one way or the other, from this incident.

The third and final mention of breaking bread in the Acts is in chapter 27. Here we read that Paul "took some bread and gave thanks to God in front of them all. Then he broke it and began to eat" (v. 35). The wording here is certainly reminiscent of the last supper, and is similar to Paul's own description of that occasion in 1 Corinthians 11:23 ("The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it ...").

These words are almost identical to the way Luke records the last supper: "he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them" (Luke 22:19) and an incident when Jesus broke bread with some disciples after His resurrection: "When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them" (24:30). In fact, Luke highlights that it was through this breaking of bread that these disciples recognised Jesus (v. 35) - no doubt because table-fellowship was such a central part of our Lord's ministry. Notice how each record has these words: (1) took bread (2) gave thanks (3) broke it and (4) gave it to them. The breaking of bread in Acts 27 followed the same form as the breaking of bread ritual recorded elsewhere.

What is really remarkable about the Acts 27 incident is that the same expression is used in Acts 2 and Acts 20 for gatherings and meals of the believers, yet in Acts 27 Luke is recording an incident when Paul "broke bread" with his unbelieving fellow-survivors of a ship wreck. We should carefully note that Paul "broke bread" with people who were strangers to him, "sinners" and non-Jews alike. The basis of their fellowship was that they had been through a common experience and been saved (from shipwreck). They were invited to the Lord's table in celebration. Perhaps we need to re-think what it is we celebrate by "breaking bread", and with whom.

From the Acts 27 incident we can be certain that "breaking bread" was not some mystical experience reserved as a "sacrament" for believers, not was it restricted to those "in fellowship" because they believed in "the apostles' doctrine".

The other thing we can be certain about is that in Acts 2 and Acts 27 "breaking bread" meant having a meal, not just a morsel of bread torn from a loaf. In Acts 27 for example we read that Paul said "for the last fourteen days, you have been in constant suspense and have gone without food" and they therefore should eat, and then after he "broke bread" they ate "as much as they wanted" (vv. 37-38). As far as I can see there is absolutely no Biblical basis for the later practice of celebrating "the breaking of bread" with a tiny piece of bread and a sip of wine.

This brings us to the references in 1 Corinthians to breaking bread. In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 Paul refers to the unleavened bread used at the Passover Festival: "For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth." There is a hint here that the early Christians may have kept the Passover as an annual festival, celebrating our deliverance by Christ*. There is nothing in the context of these verses which suggests Paul was thinking of a weekly "Festival". The Feasts, or Festivals, of Israel (including Passover) were annual events and there is no other mention of the weekly gatherings of believers as "Festivals". Some Christadelphians quote this passage as the reason why unleavened bread should be used for the Breaking of Bread meeting, but there is no evidence that Paul had weekly meetings of believers in mind or that he was thinking of anything other than the annual Passover Festival. However, what is interesting (to me) is that the Passover Festival which Paul referred to was a meal, not just a piece of bread.

The second mention of bread in 1 Corinthians is in 10:16-17 where Paul writes "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." This passage connects to the early reference to Passover, as "the cup of thanksgiving" was one of four cups of wine consumed during the Passover meal. Paul later says this was the cup "after supper" (11:25). The Passover meal began with a prayer recited over bread, and ended with a prayer said over wine. Between this "grace before meals" and the "grace after meals" was the meal. By taking the bread and wine only, and omitting the meal, is to miss the whole point that this was meant to be a meal and not just a small piece of bread and a sip of wine. In fact, Passover was no ordinary meal - it was a celebration, and the four cups of wine emphasised the celebratory nature of this meal.

This mention of bread and wine in chapter 10 almost certainly was referring back to the previous mention of the Passover and therefore was probably referring to the church's annual celebration of Passover. There is nothing here to suggest that it was a weekly gathering. In any case, there is nothing to suggest that the elements of bread and wine were separated from a meal.

The last mention of breaking bread in 1 Corinthians is in Paul's account of the last supper and forms part of his rebuke of the Corinthian practice of treating poorer brethren contemptibly. He begins by saying "I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good" (11:7) and refers specifically to a very divisive practice: "for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk." I dealt with this in an earlier post in a series on the Lord's table, but I'll repeat it here for convenience.

In the Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) world it was common among the wealthy for meals with invited guests to be in two stages: the main meal was eaten first, followed by a "symposium" which consisted of desserts and drinks, accompanied by speeches and discussion. Some guests would be invited for the first stage, and further guests would be invited to the symposium. (There is also some evidence that on some ocasions the symposium was 'open' for anyone who was not invited but who wished to listen to the speeches and discussion to stand around the outside, although not joining in the desserts and drinks).

The main problem in Corinth arose out of tensions between the rich and poor. For the first few centuries of Christianity meetings were held in homes and not in church buildings. The size of meetings was dictated by the size of the largest home. Obviously meetings would therefore usually be in the homes of the wealthiest members. This seems to have been the case in Corinth. While we don't know exactly what was going wrong in Corinth, we do know that a distinction was being made between rich and poor. There are two main possibilities:

1. The rich were arriving early (perhaps while the poor were still working) and enjoying a large meal together with fine food. The poor would arrive later with their own scanty food (possibly for the 'symposium'). The bread and wine of the Lord's Supper were brought together and taken at the end of the meal (rather than the bread at the beginning and the wine at the end, with the meal in between, as it happened at the last supper).
2. The rich and poor were eating at the same time, but bringing their own food - the rich eating and drinking well, with meat and delicacies, and the poor with scanty food, perhaps only bread. Although the rich opened their houses to the poor they did so in a way which emphasised the social divisions. There was over-indulgence on the part of the rich, and feelings of envy on the part of the poor.

The Corinthian practice meant that the meal had lost its character as the Lord's supper (11:20). Paul's response was to instruct the church to welcome one another graciously ("wait for each other" v. 33), and to share their food so that nobody felt disadvantaged. There was no suggestion that they should stop eating together at all. In fact, the meal was so central to the Lord's Supper that Jude refers to the meetings of the church as "love feasts" (v. 12).

This passage highlights once again that "the apostles' doctrine" was about sharing material possessions. The wealthy Corinthians are rebuked for their practice of ignoring the needs of the poor and not sharing their food with them, and are encouraged to follow the Lord's example. What is very clear from this is that the "breaking of bread" in Corinth was a meal, and not the kind of ritual that would be celebrated these days in a Christadelphian Breaking of Bread meeting or in the Communion services of most denominations. At some point in church history the elements of bread and wine were separated from this shared meal and "sacramentalised" and rules were put in place for the "administration" of the sacrament by priests.

Perhaps it's time for a re-think and a return to the earliest practices of the believers.



* There is some evidence that the early Christians continued to celebrate the Jewish Passover on the same date observed by the Jewish people. This changed when the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. adopted the name Easter as representing the events of Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection and by observing Easter on the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox. The Palestinian historian Epiphanius (315 A.D. - 403 A.D.) says that the 15 Jewish Christian bishops who administered the Jerusalem Church until 135 A.D. observed Passover on Nisan 14. In The Apostolic Constitutions, an early Christian document, the following rule is laid out: "You shall not change the calculation of the time, but you shall celebrate it at the same time as your brethren who came out of the circumcision (the Jews). With them observe the Passover."

50 years of the Australian Unity Agreement (13)

What is "fellowship"? (5)

In an earlier post in this series (number 11) I concluded:

The hypothetical examples I've already given in this series are also obvious enough that fellowship simply happens. It happens automatically when people who are in relationship with God come together, and it happens regardless of whether they 'Break Bread' together or gather in a religious service. It can't be legislated against, agreed to, or prevented. It just happens.

In this post I'd like to start answering two questions that arise out of this:

1. What is it that "just happens" when believers gather together?
2. How can we make fellowship "just happen", or what can we do to facilitate it?
   

In another post (number 10) I referred to the Greek word koinonia which is sometimes translated "fellowship" in the English versions, and said its primary meaning is to "share" something. A good starting place in understanding what it is that the first Christians shared is the record in Acts of the earliest meetings of the believers after Jesus' resurrection and Pentecost.

Acts 2:42 says: "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer."

This verse is sometimes quoted to support the view that "fellowship" is based on sound doctrine, and that the central act of fellowship is the "breaking of bread". The King James Version says "they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship" so this seems to support this idea. So we need to ask, what was the apostles' doctrine or teaching? We should note here that Paul wasn't among the apostles at this stage, so we need to look at the writings of the other apostles which are preserved in the New Testament - Peter, James, John and Jude - as well as the context in Acts.

First, from the immediate context in Acts 2, we get a clear illustration of how this fellowship was practiced. Two verses later we read "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need" (vv 44-45). The word translated "in common" is the Greek adjective koinos, part of the same group of words that includes koinonia. Their "fellowship" was in the sharing of material possessions and a degree of communal living. This sharing of material things was based on the teachings of Jesus and continued by the apostles. "The apostles' teaching/doctrine" is preserved in their writings such as the following:

"This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth ... " (1 John 3:16-19)

To John the evidence that someone "belongs to the truth" is the sharing of their material possessions with a brother in need. The apostle's doctrine here is to love "with actions and in truth" and not with words.

James taught similarly:

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (James 1:27).

"Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead" (James 2:15-17).

Incidentally, it seems that the whole of James' letter is a commentary on Jesus' sermon on the mount. It's clear that "the apostles' teaching" was a continuation of Jesus' own teaching.

Peter wrote:

"Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms" (1 Peter 4:8-10).

This was "the apostles' doctrine". In a nutshell we could say that the apostles' doctrine was "share your stuff"!

Luke, the writer of Acts, continues his description of early Christian life:

"Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:46-47)

We learn from these verses that by "breaking of bread" he meant they ate their meals together in each others homes. There is no hint here that the "breaking of bread" involved any kind of liturgical worship, or organised religious services. It's possible that their daily meetings in the temple courts included participation in the temple services, but the "breaking of bread" is clearly said to have taken place "in their homes" and their fellowship was experienced in frequently meeting informally with each other, sharing meals together, getting to know each others needs, and in sharing their possessions with those in need.

These meals shared together in each others homes were so important in the communal life of the early Christians that Jude calls them "love feasts" (v. 12). In a series of earlier posts I wrote about the central role that meals played in Jesus' ministry and how He used meals as a metaphor for the kingdom of God. I suggested that His words at the last supper - "do this in memory of me" - was an instruction to carry on His practice of including the outcasts, the disenfranchised, the unclean, and the rejected in our meals and in the life of the community. It seems from Acts that the early believers carried on His teaching and His practice.

It's often over informal gatherings, especially if they include a meal, that people get to know each other and get to understand their real needs. If we regularly meet for meals in each others homes it's inevitable that relationships will form and deepen, and bonds will be forged that are difficult to break. This is where fellowship often "happens".

But there are a couple more important things we should note from this passage in Acts. First, there is no suggestion that there was anything "sacramental" about the breaking of bread. It was simply a meal taken together and "breaking bread" was the usual way of saying "having a meal". There is no hint here of the later church practice of having a meeting for worship, teaching and prayer and including a morsel of bread and a sip of wine. This later practice simply preserved a remnant of the earliest custom. The "sacrament" of communion, eucharist or "breaking bread" is a token or symbolic meal, but bears little resemblance to the earliest practice which was a normal and proper meal shared in homes.

The other thing we might observe is that there is no suggestion here that anyone was excluded from this meal. It's hard to imagine, for example, that the children who were part of the household would be excluded from the meal, or that guests would leave their children at home simply because they were "under-age" or not yet baptised. The kind of communal life we are intended to imagine is one which would have included whole families and probably extended to friends, neighbours and the extended family.

In my next post I plan to look at the other references to "the breaking of bread" in the New Testament and see if my conclusions from Acts 2 are consistent with the rest of the New Testament.

Wrested Scriptures (4) - "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"

For as long as I can remember I've been hearing Amos 3:3 quoted in support of the argument that there must be doctrinal uniformity on all points in order for there to be "unity" in an ecclesia, or in order for an individual or ecclesia to be accepted "in fellowship".

The King James Version translates this verse: "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"

As with the other "wrested Scriptures" I've already examined in this series, this verse is made to mean something totally different to what it was intended to mean, and this peculiar interpretation is reached only by taking the verse out of its context and then relying on a translation which is at odds with almost all other translators.

The Hebrew word translated here in the KJV as "agreed" is ya'ad. Strong's Hebrew Lexicon says this word (in the niphal tense) means:

1) to meet
2) to meet by appointment
3) to gather, assemble by appointment

Here is how some other translations render this verse:

• "Do two walk together unless they have made an appointment?" (Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible)
• "Can two people walk together without agreeing to meet?" (Contemporary English Version)
• "Do two walk together if they have not met?" (Young's Literal Translation)

Gesenius says it means "to come together at an appointed time or place". The "agreement" here relates only to the intention to meet together at a particular time and place. There is nothing in this word, or its context, to suggest that there has to be agreement about anything else in order for the parties to "walk together" or meet together. In fact, in other contexts this root word took on the meaning of an engagement or espousal to marry. It did not refer to the marriage itself, but rather to the intention to marry. Similarly, the word could be used of a summons to a court. It did not refer to the court trial but to the summons issued to appear for trial. In this case the parties did not meet together because they "agreed" but rather that they might debate their differences.

One commentator has noted the use of the verse in the context of divisions in the church:

"It is an interesting observation that those who head for Amos 3:3 for a text of unity, actually are not trying to promote unity at all. They are searching for grounds on which to justify their separation from others." (W. Carl Ketcherside, The Twisted Scriptures, St. Louis Missouri, 1992).

The passage in Amos goes on to say that God does not pour out His judgment on a city without first revealing His intention to His prophets (verse 7). The whole passage is about God declaring His intention, and not about reaching agreement.

One of the reasons why there is so much dis-unity in the Christadelphian community is that too many people have tried to create unity on their own terms by demanding that everyone else has to agree with them. Amos 3:3 is often quoted as "proof" that unity can only be achieved through doctrinal conformity. As long ago as December 1993 I wrote an article in the Christadelphian Forum magazine about the failure of the Australian Unity Agreement to achieve any kind of meaningful unity (and at the time "block disfellowship" was being practiced by several ecclesias which adopted the Agreement against other ecclesias which were parties to the same Agreement). In that article I wrote the following:

I would suggest that the Australian Unity Agreement has failed chiefly because of a lack of commitment to the idea of Unity. In fact, our history as a community has shown that we have never been terribly committed to the idea ...

Before we could ever be committed to unity we would have to decide that we wanted it ...

This is why the Unity Agreement didn’t work. It was a formality, a technicality, a legal document encompassing a credal formula which was open to interpretation. It could not, however, compel the parties to it to love each other. For a while the threat of exclusion from the ‘fellowship’ of the wider community was sufficient to encourage ecclesias to support the concept of ‘Unity’, but it didn’t take long for some brethren and ecclesias to realise that nothing needed to change. They could still insist that their interpretation of Scripture was the only valid one; if they didn’t like the way other brethren said or did things they could try to isolate them in various ways; they could criticise, condemn or denigrate their brethren; and they didn’t have to do anything at all to help their brethren in any way! And everything was fine because we had ‘Unity’ ...

We must want Unity. We must do more than think Unity would be a nice ideal. There must be a genuine yearning for it.

Perhaps I'll post the entire article on this blog later because it's still relevant, not only in Australia where the 'celebrations' for the fiftieth anniversary of the Unity Agreement have been marred by still more fellowship controversies, but also in North America where the unity discussions broke down (as I publicly predicted as soon as I knew of the involvement of certain brethren who were renowned for their refusal to compromise or negotiate).

I hear that the Australian celebrations have included references to Amos 3:3 and that, regrettably, the mistranslation of the KJV is being pushed in an effort to bully ecclesias who aren't conforming into accepting the exclusivist approach to fellowship. Hopefully common sense will soon prevail and there will be something to celebrate.

Wrested Scriptures (3) - "tell it to the church"

Matthew 18:15-17 is quoted so often as a 'formula' for dealing with disputes between brethren that it's quite common to refer simply to 'Matthew 18' and most people know at once that it is this 3 or 4 step process that is being referred to. If someone says the church or an individual should "apply Matthew 18" then it is understood that a suggestion is being made to follow these steps.

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

Unfortunately, Jesus' words here are often quoted without their immediate context and consequently sometimes given a meaning contrary to their original intention. The preceeding verses are about rescuing lost sheep and acting with humility towards others. Jesus dramatically emphasised the importance of avoiding any action that might cause a brother to sin. These verses under consideration are followed in Matthew's account with a saying that we should forgive our brother, not seven times but "seventy times seven" (v. 22), and a parable about how our forgiveness should be generous, abundant and overflowing.

Yet this saying has often been used in a way which is far from gracious or forgiving. It is sometimes applied as a strict legal process ending in the offender being cut off from fellowship. I've seen the 'process' applied over a period of days. Here is an example based on real-life:

Step 1: A brother (or sister) has been rumoured to have committed some offence (or to hold some unorthodox opinion). An email is sent to them to ask if the rumour is true. ("If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you.")

Step 2: It seems from the reply to the email that the alleged offender is denying the allegation (contrary to the information received from "a reliable source"), but there's something about the response which makes the enquirer suspicious that they are hiding something. A second email is sent, but this time a third party is copied in on the email. ("But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' ")

Step 3: The accused person becomes agitated that they weren't believed, or because rumours are being spread about them, and possibly because a third person has now become involved. They send off a quick response which is probably angrier in its tone than it might have been had they first slept on it. This just confirms in the mind of the enquirer that something is wrong. They forward the email on to the Arranging Brethren of the ecclesia. ("If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.")

Step 4: The Arranging Brethren discuss it at their monthly meeting, which just happened to be that evening, and agree that something needs to be done. A letter is sent to the offender before the week is out telling him that they want him to attend a special Arranging Brethren's meeting on the following Tuesday to answer the charges. In the meantime, because of the seriousness of the allegations, they advise that the brother has been suspended from all ecclesial duties.

Step 5: The accused brother takes offence at this heavy-handed approach and says he refuses to meet the Arranging Brethren until his accusers come to him face-to-face "in the spirit of Matthew 18". The Recorder sends urgent emails to all the Arranging Brethren, informing them of this development and of the brother's intransigence and his refusing to accept their authority. He's actually worse than they originally thought! They agree that "Matthew 18 has already been applied" (through the sending of two emails) and that as they have now reached the last step they have no alternative but to reluctantly withdraw fellowship ("if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.")

That might sound exaggerated but this example is based on real-life incidents. Is this what Jesus meant by forgiving your brother seventy times seven? Is this what He meant about going after a lost sheep? Or humbling yourself like a child? Or suffering personal loss in order to avoid causing a brother to sin? All these things are in Matthew 18, so whatever we do with these few verses we must interpret and apply them in this context.

The first thing we must do is to put this 'process' back in its context and take note of the words which immediately follow.

"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

We should carefully note that these words are about "agreeing" and "coming together". Jesus hasn't changed the subject - this is actually the conclusion to the 'process' that He has just described. The whole object of the 3 or 4 steps in dealing with a brother who sins is to "win your brother over" (v. 15), to "agree" (v. 19) and to "come together" (v. 20). The climax comes in Jesus own asurance that if brethren follow these steps to resolve their differences and to be reconciled ("come together") it is because He is present and has been at the heart of the process of reconciliation.

This teaching is about forgiveness and reconciliation. It's obvious that the example above misses the point completely. So what is Jesus saying?

First, if a brother sins then go to him privately, face-to-face, and in a non-confrontational way and do whatever you personally can to help him get back on track.

If that fails, draw on the experiences of other mature Christians and use them as helpful resources.

If that doesn't help, then use the entire collective wisdom of the whole community of God's people ("the church" didn't exist as an institution at the time, so Jesus is either referring to the local synagogue [but then why not say "the synagogue"?] or, more likely, He is using a word from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible which means the community of God's people). In other words, get as much help as you can, draw on anyone you need to, get the whole community involved if necessary.

Finally, if that fails (and I imagine that that last step would take a very long time), then "treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector". What did Jesus mean by that? Was He suggesting that the offender should be treated with contempt and avoided at all costs? How did Jesus treat "pagans and tax collectors"?

• He called them to be disciples (Matt 9:9)
  
• He ate with them (Matt 9:10-11) and it shocked the religious leaders that he "fellowshipped" with such people
  
• He was their friend (Matt 11:19)
• He promised that they would go into the Kingdom ahead of the religious leaders (Matt 21:32)

The Synoptic Gospels all emphasise the special place the pagans, tax collectors and sinners occupied in the ministry and affections of Jesus. Can Matthew 18:17 be saying the exact opposite? Unlikely! I think what Jesus is saying is that we never give up in working for agreement or reconciliation. We forgive again and again and again ("seventy times seven"), maintaining a relationship with a brother who has sinned, and treat him as someone in need.

I really feel it's important that Christadelphians who have used these verses in Matthew 18 as part of their "disfellowship process" should re-look at them very seriously. I was recently astounded to see this teaching quoted to support a case for ecclesias standing together "collectively" in order to isolate another ecclesia which wasn't conforming. The minutes of a "Combined Meeting of the Arranging Brothers of 12 South-East Queensland Ecclesias" (on 18th June 2007) noted a recommendation that "all ecclesias should move forward collectively and not individually in the spirit of Matt 18" in order to put pressure on the ecclesia being discussed. Where on earth did they get the idea that to "move forward collectively and not individually" was the "spirit of Matt 18"?! It seems they have missed the point of Jesus' teaching completely!

Wrested Scriptures (2) - "offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned"

In my last post I showed that one of the Scriptures which are frequently quoted in support of "withdrawing fellowship" when read in it's context actually means something quite different from the meaning attached to it by religious purists*. In this post I want to consider another passage whose meaning has been reversed by the purists.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. (Romans 16:17 KJV)

Of all the scriptures which have wrested (twisted or distorted) by the purists, this one may have suffered more maltreatment than most others. Written for the very purpose of protecting and preserving the church from division, it has become one of the chief instruments of such division.

What did Paul mean when he wrote about "the doctrine you have learned"? We first need to look at the context to see what Paul had been teaching the Romans which would cause them to avoid those who were divisive. The context shows that Paul had been teaching them that division among brethren is a sin. The "doctrine" he is referring to is the teaching that no one should cause division ("doctrine" literally means "teaching"). In a nutshell, that teaching in Romans is summed up in 14:19 "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification".

The verse we are looking at comes at the end of a body of teaching which commences in Romans 12:1. Paul devotes the next 4 chapters to Christian conduct, especially as related to unity in the community of God's people. His primary teaching is that God's people should not be divided and its members should not put obstacles in front of another believer.
Here are some key verses from that body of teaching:

• "In Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others" (12:5).
• "Love must be sincere." (12:9)
  
• "Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves." (12:10)
• "Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited." (12:16)
• "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another". (13:8)
• Chapter 14 deals at length with the attitudes necessary to preserve unity in spite of differences. The foundation of Paul's teaching about this is laid in verse one: "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters."

After having given this extensive teaching about avoiding division and preserving unity, Paul recognises there will be those who will not follow this teaching. There will always be people who refuse to follow the example of Christ, but who create a factional atmosphere. Almost every church at some time will encounter people who want to set up their own power bases, who recognize as brethren only those who agree with their opinions, and who will drive out the believers who will not submit to their authority. Jesus encountered this in the religious leaders of His day, the New Testament letters show how such people infiltrated the church from an early stage, and the divided state of Christendom in general is evidence of this factionalism.

So what should be done about a person who insists that his/her view is the right one and that everyone else should agree with it? How do we handle a person (or group of people) who is/are threatening to divide a church or group of believers by making a big issue out of a difference of opinion? Paul says "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them" (Rom 16:17 NIV).

We should note several things about these words:

1. Paul is not advocating any public or corporate action here. He is not telling a congregation that they should excommunicate or disfellowship any one.
2. The "avoiding" recommended by Paul is an individual thing - they are simply told to steer clear of those who create division and stay out of their way.
3. The KJV says "Mark them which cause division." The word "mark" is from the Greek skopeo and literally means "to observe, watch, to keep an eye on." The person is not "marked" in any way and nothing is actually done to them. They are simply put under surveillance, or carefully watched.
4. The word "divisions" is from dichostasia which literally means "standing apart" and here it refers to "alienating one from another." It is seen in a party-spirit where people who hold the same opinion cluster together and vote or act as a group.
5. The word "avoid" is from ekklino which means "to turn away from, to hold aloof from, to stay out of the way." There is nothing in the word which implies any formal or organised disciplinary action. W.E. Vine in his Expository Dictionary of NT Words says, "In exhorting them to turn away from false teachers, the Apostle is not speaking of excommunication, but of personal dissociation from the offenders." Commentator Albert Barnes puts it this way: "That is, avoid them as teachers; do not follow them. It does not mean that they were to be treated harshly; but that they were to be avoided in their instructions. They were to disregard all that they could say tending to produce alienation and strife; and resolve to cultivate the spirit of peace and union."

Here are some ways other translations paraphrase this verse:

• "And now I implore you, my brothers, to keep a watchful eye on those who cause troubles and make difficulties among you, in plain opposition to the teaching you have been given, and steer clear of them." (J. B. Phillips)
• "One final word of counsel, friends. Keep a sharp eye out for those who take bits and pieces of the teaching that you learned and then use them to make trouble. Give these people a wide berth." (The Message)

Everyone who uses this verse as justification for separating from people with different views, who equate "this doctrine" with some form of creedal statement (such as a statement of faith), or some other definition of "the true faith", or who insist on agreement with a doctrinal interpretation of some sort, are the very people who are disrupting unity and who Paul says we should avoid!

It is sadly ironic that the chief offenders against unity are the ones most likely to quote this verse to justify the divisions they are causing. Such is the nature of the religious purists that they wrest, or twist Scripture to make it say the opposite of what it was intended to mean.


* I will explain this term "religious purists" later when we get to a Scripture about it.

Wrested Scriptures (1) - "withdraw fellowship"

In earlier posts I've written about Jesus' teachings on the injustice of exclusivism (especially as it was practiced by the religious leaders of His day) and the "good news" that God was welcoming into His Kingdom those who had been excluded, marginalised, disenfranchised and rejected by the religious purists.

In this short series I'd like to look at the Scriptures quoted by the religious purists of our own day to support their practice of "withdrawing fellowship" from people who disagree with them. We will see that these Scriptures have been "wrested" in order to make them mean something quite different from what they actually say.

The expression "withdraw fellowship" is often regarded by Christadelphians as preferable to "disfellowship" (although that is still a very common term) or "excommunicate", because it is claimed to be a Biblical expression. Christadelphians almost certainly adopted this practice from the Disciples/Churches of Christ (sometimes called "Campbellites" by Christadelphians, but more accurately described as the Stone-Campbell Movement) who also use the term "withdraw fellowship" in some circles. Robert Roberts' Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian ecclesias (1883, aka "The Ecclesial Guide") in referring to an "offender" says it is an ecclesia's "duty to separate him from their fellowship by withdrawal".

The expression "withdraw fellowship" does not occur in the Bible. However, religious purists usually quote 2 Thessalonians 3:6 from the King James Version in support of their fellowship practices.

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."

To understand this verse we first need to understand the context. Thessalonica was a free city (urbs libera) within the Roman Empire. One of the privileges of being a free city was that freedom from taxation (libertas cum immunitate) was granted, and direct descendants of original families, as well as retired soldiers, were supported by the dole if they registered and requested it.

This status as a free city provided a lot of opportunity for leisure. Being devoid of scholastic opportunities, the tendency was for many of the men to degenerate into lazy and irresponsible louts and loungers, ready for any excitement which might be aroused to offset the monotony (and Acts 17:5 provides a hint as to how easy it was to find people of that type in Thessalonica).

This explains why Paul emphasised to the Thessalonian believers the necessity of securing honest employment, holding it, and earning one's own livelihood. He mentioned this in his first letter:

• Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. (1 Th 4:11-12).
• Surely you remember, brothers, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you. (1 Th 2:9)

This teaching provides the background for Paul's instructions in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us" (NIV).

We should especially note the immediate context. Paul's makes it clear in the words that follow that he is referring to the problem of laziness which was rife in the Thessalonian community.

• For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Th 3:7-10).

The KJV expression "walketh disorderly" has been used by religious purists to expel anyone who doesn't measure up to their standards, doctrinal or behavioural. In the Thessalonian context we can see that the NIV's translation "every brother who is idle" is a reference to the problem of idleness in Thessalonica. Other translations render it similarly:

• "Keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness" (RSV)
• "Refuse to have anything to do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way we taught you. Don't permit them to freeload on the rest." (The Message)
• "Withdraw and keep away from every brother (fellow believer) who is slack in the performance of duty and is disorderly, living as a shirker" (Amplified Bible)
• "Keep away from all brothers who are living a lazy life." (TEV)
• "Hold aloof from every Christian brother who falls into idle habits." (NEB)

The brethren in Thessalonica were simply commanded to refrain from extending hospitality to loafers and shirkers. They were not to feed them for the command was that "if any would not work neither should he eat". If one of these lazy brethren appeared at the front door just before mealtime he was to be offered a job instead of food. If he refused the former he was to be refused the latter. One who shunned honest toil was to be gently shunted from the dinner table.

The word "withdraw" is from the Greek stello which means "to avoid, to hold aloof." There is not the slightest hint of congregational, ecclesial or corporate action. There is no public or formal discipline. Nothing is done to the idle person. He is simply left where he is while the brethren step back from him. To "withdraw yourselves" means to step back, to retreat, or to retire from the scene. It does not mean to expel or remove. The phrase "have no company with him" (v. 14) is intended to forbid the extending of hospitality. It would preclude invitations to social gatherings to which the idle might flock and at which they would eat at the expense of others.

We should also note that the one from whom the brethren are to step back or hold themselves aloof is referred to as a brother, although a lazy one who is living in idleness. Paul twice refers to the lazy individual as a brother. There is absolutely no justification for the practice amongst religious purists of refusing to call a disfellowshipped person a brother. This practice in the Christadelphian community began with John Thomas and Robert Roberts who, after they had fallen out with a brother, thereafter referred to him as "Mr". But there is no Scriptural justification for it - a brother does not cease to be a brother just because you disagree with him, or even if you "withdraw" from him.

It is almost impossible to imagine how the tangled maze of disciplinary action - accusation, boycott, disfellowship, and congregational exclusivism - has grown out of this passage. When authoritarians seek justification for their bullying attitudes they undoubtedly find that the words "withdraw yourselves" provide a handy tool to satisfy their divisiveness and they appropriate them as a weapon in the arsenal of factionalism.