A loose basis of fellowship is convenient, and easily becomes popular with inexperienced believers, or obtuse believers of long standing. It is agreeable to human feeling, but it is out of harmony with the apostolic standard which demands "the whole counsel of God" and the "unity of the Faith."
The loose basis admits of a larger cooperation with men, and a little more of the friendship of this world than is possible with those who accept the stranger-ship-with-God with the Truth always brings with it where it is earnestly and fully received. Of course, it is defended as a scriptural thing. No man would admit his way to be unscriptural, but it may be very unscriptural for all that.
A man thinks he takes very scriptural ground when he says he is content with what Paul required: "Jesus Christ and him crucified." This phrase was never intended as an indication of how little of the Truth would do, but as a definition of the whole Truth, in contrast with the wisdom of the Greeks which Paul determinedly ignored in his intercourse with believers.
In every other attempt by the quotation of phrases to excuse a loose and limited basis of fellowship, the same fallacy will be apparent. The Truth is a complete thing. It is made up of coherent parts, and any consent to ignore any of the parts is unfaithfulness to the whole; and must inevitably lead, as it always has, to first the gradual corruption and then the ultimate surrender of the whole. There is no safe, or logical, or scriptural position but that of requiring the whole Truth in its integrity.
Dowieism was welcomed by Renunciationism when Renunciationists broke away from the restraints of the Truth. And Partial Inspirationism is repeating the same evil course. Friends of the Truth have need of the adamant face and brazen forehead enjoined on Ezekiel. It is an unpleasant necessity, but must be accepted if the Truth is not to slide back once more into the slough of worldwide corruption from which it has been fished up and washed in these latter days.
What is the "popery" that some cry out about, but inflexible insistence on the right-with courtesy where possible, but always with inflexibility. Would the outcriers do less than insist on the right?
"Oh no," say they, "but you are not the judge of the right."
Who is? Is it you? Suppose they say, "No one." What then? Is there no right?
"Oh yes," they may say, "but it is for each man to judge for himself."
Very good: "each man"-and we as well? Are we not to judge for ourselves? Must we accept their judgment? Must we make "popes" of them?
Our friends are not reasonable with us. We judge for ourselves alone in all matters of faith and practice. We impose our judgment on no one. If we cannot agree with the critics, we are sorry. If others agree with us, we ask in vain for the one hundreth time, why are we to be charged with this as a crime?
And then this "unrighteous action"-what was it? Merely throwing aside a human arrangement when it no longer answered the divine ends for which we all agreed to it. A ship is good when she is sound. But if she gets scuttled by pirate or mutinous crew, the sane passengers will not be leisurely about getting into the boat.
Our paper Constitution [not the Statement of Faith] was powerless against the organized perfidy of two regularly published papers with a phalanx of secret sympathizers. There was nothing left but to put aside the paper Constitution, which was a human expediency. There was nothing divine in it when it ceased to be useful.
It was necessary to adopt measures that would make manifest to each other those who were sworn to maintain the Oracles of Divine Truth against the secret unfaithfulness that had just become public, and which was carrying all before it like a flood.
Those who could not diagnose the situation were naturally taken by surprise; and putting a bit of this and a bit of that together in an irrelevant manner, they made an evil matter of it. Faithful men enquired, and learned to read the matter correctly, and were glad of an opportunity of showing themselves unambiguously on God's side.
The "unrighteous action" will be seen in a totally different character when things on earth come to be exhibited in a divine light, as they will shortly. What seems "unrighteous action" to men may be, and often is, righteous action in the sight of God. God sees differently from men. Actions prompted with a view to Him have always in the world's history appeared shocking in the eyes of those who cannot rise above the views, impressions and surroundings of the moment. Our appeal is to another day.
Unquestionably, Bro. Roberts' prompt and robust action saved the Truth and the Body at that time from progressive corruption. And let us note well: as he points out, previous erroneous elements that had been separated from were drifting together, and the Partial Inspirationists were already following the same course of loose reunion, creating a "mixed multitude." What unfaithful folly, then, to sweep back in all this "mixed multitude" by a mere majority vote-taking in the noes as well as the yeas. What wonder at the current confusion!
-Bro. G.V. Growcott
