By Robert Roberts
There either is or is not such a thing as scriptural fellowship in our age. If there is not, we may as well abandon all attempts to apply scriptural principles in our relations with men, and be content to drift on the unsettled waters of mere race-religionism: a Catholic among Catholics, a Protestant among Protestants, a Mohammedan among Mahommedians, etc.
There is no middle ground between the Christadelphian position and the absolute indifferentism of national ecclesiasticism. The Christadelphian position is:
If this is a right position (and it has been proved in the article on Fellowship to which you object) [see The Nature and Conditions of Fellowship] , then it is no faithful man's part to unite himself to those who may "differ from himself in his reading or interpretation of the Scriptures." He is under apostolic obligation to withdraw, where the Truth--as he conceives it--is not received.
You call this "setting up as judge and jury." This is a mis-description. The man in such a case judges and jurifies himself merely. He decides that his surroundings in a given case impose upon him a certain line of duty. In this, he is a "divinely appointed arbiter" insofar as God requires him to discern and perform his duty.
You look at the act as it bears on those from whom he withdraws. It is this that confuses your view. You speak of "excluding" from fellowship. This is not the question. It is "withdrawal". There is a great difference. No enlightened man will claim jurisdiction over another. His jurisdiction is limited to himself. And here, surely, it is absolute. If the conditions of scriptural association do not exist, he is bound to perceive the fact and ACT upon it, or else accept the character of neutral--of which the divine law provides no recognition.
It is not a case of "pulling up the tares," but of acting a part apostolically enjoined. The tares are still left, if tares they are. It belongs to God to pull them up.
Nevertheless, it belongs to men who may wish to be garnered with the wheat to meanwhile act a faithful part by the Truth which God commits to every man who receives it; and--when necessary--to "withdraw from every brother who walks" inconsistently with apostolic principles.
You suggest that this was the prerogative of apostolic authority only. Look into it, and you will see it is apostolic advice and command to believers. We do not require apostolic authority to obey apostolic counsels. Apostolic counsels are as valid in the 19th century as in the first. Otherwise it would come to this: that the apostolic work was confined to the lives of the apostles, and that there can be no compliance with apostolic principles (and therefore no salvation) in the 19th century!
It doubtless would "require the gift of the Spirit," as you say, "to act with the authority of Christ" with regard to others. But a man does not require the gift of the Spirit to decide his own attitude toward men and things. What may be the right attitude, he has to find out. When found, he is bound to take it--or incur condemnation on the day of account. Fie requires no inspiration to see when the doctrines or the commandments of Christ are set aside. And when he sees this, Christ has commanded him what to do as regards continuing or not continuing his participation with the unfaithfulness.
He leaves God to deal with the unfaithful. But while he does this, he is not absolved from the duty of exercising his own discernments, and "coming out from among them." We have truly no right to excommunicate. But we have a right to take ourselves away, if circumstances call for it.
--Feb., 1886
