Judge, Judge Not, and Fellowship
By Robert Roberts
Commenting on an agonizingly sincere appeal for more "love" and "unity," and less carefulness for separation over doctrine.
It is impossible not to respect the spirit and intent of this letter. It doubtless represents the mental state of a large class. There are men with almost agonizing sincerity of purpose who cannot see through the fogs that envelop the Truth in an age when there is no living voice of authoritative guidance, and when the power of correctly interpreting the written Word is the only rule of conviction.
It is natural to wish to think that in such a situation of Divine Truth on the earth, the same consideration will at last be shown towards those who earnestly do their best in the dimness, that was shown--on the intercession of Hezekiah--toward the multitude of Israel who (2 Chron. 30:18)-- "Had not cleansed themselves, yet did eat the Passover otherwise than written." It may be so. God is not unrighteous or unreasonable.
At the same time, in such a situation, when the Truth can with difficulty be kept alive at all, it is not for those who know the Truth to work by a may be. We must be governed by what is revealed, leaving the Lord to revoke the present rule of probation, or make His Own allowances in its application.
The rule at present, as our correspondent fully recognizes, is the reception of and submission to-- "The things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ." He unequivocally says there must be no deviation from this as the basis of fellowship. The question is: Are we to require all the "things" or only a part of them, in laying this foundation? If we agree to all the things, and not a part only, then we must front the question whether the two subjects on which he comments are or are not included in the "things" in question.
He will find it impossible to exclude them. If the nature of Christ and his function as Judge be not included among them, it would be difficult to give a reason for including any doctrine among them. Where, then, would be the "things"?
Divergences on these subjects are as lamentable and bitterness-engendering as our correspondent feels them to be. But they are inevitable where men are in earnest about the supremacy of Divine principles.
It would be pleasant, and in many ways profitable, to hold them in abeyance and "agree to differ," but such a policy on the part of enlightened men is not possible without unfaithfulness.
There is nothing for it but to maintain the Truth in our Basis of Fellowship, with all the patience and urbanity we can exercise, but with all the quiet inflexibility of men who know they are dealing with a Divine trust, in which it will be a "fearful thing" to be found at last unworthy stewards.
--February, 1895
