The Bride of Christ: Elements of Communion, Part 2
6) Recommendation.
Not every unwise departure or even unhealthy departure from a church is necessarily a disorderly departure. In other words, a person could make an unwise decision to leave a church, but do it in an orderly way is what I am saying. But many departures from a churches are not only unwise but disorderly. Too many of them are characterized by hastiness, impatience, pettiness, foolishness, disregard for unity and peace, contempt of church covenants, and obstinacy.
Often I think, a big part of the solution will include teaching our church members a better way to depart from a church should they ever have to do it. This phenomenon of people being hasty etc. in their departing from churches, and this way of thinking about it, as is expressed in our Confession, is not peculiar to Particular Baptists of the 17th century or Congregationalist of the 17th century, let alone of the Reformed Baptists of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Let me read from Wilhelmus à Brakel in The Christian’s Reasonable Service. He says:
If someone has difficulty concerning the doctrine or life of the church, and he is of the opinion that there also he ought to withdraw himself from the church and the partaking of the Lord’s Supper, this ought to arouse suspicion as to whether this is not due to obstinacy or erroneous views or being proudly opinionated. It is a bold if not a reckless undertaking to take such a step knowing that it will engender great disturbances and nothing but nothing but confusion in the church of the Lord Jesus while doing harm to souls as a result. One generally has ulterior motives when he neither shares his difficulties with the ministers nor wishes to be instructed, but immediately and without discussion not only makes a decision but translates this into action, stubbornly persevering in this and considering himself wiser in his own eyes than seven who answer with reason, whoever gives heed to counsel is wise.
It says in Proverbs 18:1, “A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire, he rages against all wise judgement.”
We should teach the people in our churches how that Proverb has an application to church membership and to biblical churchmanship. We should teach the thirteenth paragraph of chapter 26 of our Confession, and we should teach the biblical principles behind it such as: don’t be easily or quickly offended, don’t depart hastily or rashly from a church, wait upon Christ. This kind of thing—leaving churches, going from one church to another—can be done much better, much more wisely, much more righteously than it is often done.
I remember, a few decades ago, I was new to a Reformed Baptist church or any kind of Reformed church, and I remember that we were praying for a group of Reformed Baptists down in the South. They were a group of people who were Reformed Baptists by conviction and they were all in a Presbyterian church, or at least most of them were in a Presbyterian church, and they left that Presbyterian church to form a Reformed Baptist church. They did it in such a way that the pastor of the Presbyterian church preached at the constituting (I think it was) of that local church. Years later, after that small Reformed Baptist church disbanded, a number of the Reformed Baptists returned and dwelt peaceably there. I don’t know all the circumstances, but I do know that much.
I can think of instances years ago when I was in the Midwest, people would come to us and there were things that were problems in these people’s lives and former church associations. I used to do things like contact the pastors when people came to us directly from another church. I have done that here as well, and I have said, “Did these people leave as members in good standing from your church? Did they leave in an orderly way?” Because there would be churches we wouldn’t even know perhaps if these people didn’t show up in our church, but it is an orderly way to do it.
Or sometimes there would be a new prospective church member of our church, and that person had complaints about the former church they were part of, about the former pastor or both, a lot of complaints in some cases. When I sat with a person like that, I would ask them so questions, and one of my questions was (when they are telling me all this stuff about how terrible that church was) I would say, “Do you need me to go with you back to that church or that pastor to iron something out?” And if they said, “No,” I would say, “Then I don’t wanna hear any more criticisms of that church or that pastor. I don’t wanna hear them in my study, and I don’t wanna hear them among the brethren in the church.” We need to teach these things to our people. So recommendation.
7) Consultation.
Then the seventh thing: consultation.
Consultation for the Puritans meant: seeking the advice of pastors of other churches for various reasons. In one of their documents they said that “consultation would happen regarding matters with more than ordinary importance.” They will base it on Scriptures such as I have listed here: Proverbs 24:6, Proverbs 15:22—those are passages regarding there being wisdom in a multitude of counselors.
Acts chapter 15 has to do with the dispute about circumcision, and in verse 2 it talks about Paul and Barnabas travelling to Jerusalem to discuss this matter and in verse 6 it says, “The apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.” Acts 15, for the Congregationalist, was a go-to text for many of their interchurch duties for them, and I know also for the Presbyterian it is a go-to text for Presbyterianism, for some Reformed Baptists it is a go-to text for associations. I know all this stuff, but everyone would agree, I hope, that at least the text will bear the weight of this matter of consultation, that men in different churches can consult with one another about certain things.
So some of the occasions for would be first: ordination, or in one of the documents, the Congregationalist documents they say, “Ordination, translation, and deposition of elders and such like.” 1 Timothy 5:22, “Do not lay hands on anyone hastily,” and they used that text to refer to situations in which neighboring pastors of sister churches would assist to see that a church doesn’t lay hands on someone hastily. So they would include things like examining ministers and then charging them, laying hands on them and so on.
Ordination would be one occasion, another one be helping a pastor or eldership dealing with a former member of another church. So let’s say someone left your church, went to another place, the pastor or pastors there might call you up and ask questions, and maybe they are doing it because there is some disorderliness involved here. Maybe it’s because this person is telling the pastor about their problems which don’t have any relation to you or your church, but it’s serious problems and you have pastoral experience, counseling experience with that person, with that couple.
The Cambridge Platform states it this way: “Consultation with one another, when we have occasion to require the judgement and counsel of other churches touching any person or cause wherewith they may be better acquainted than ourselves.” We should be humble enough to assume that such and such a pastor didn’t just botch this thing up, because often, I think, we come to that conclusion after a long time when we really should assume it from the beginning and be willing to ask and get help.
Another occasion for consultation would be what I’m just grouping as ‘various ecclesiastical problems.’ One of their phrases was this: “We use consultation when any church wanteth light or peace amongst themselves,” or as they said in the 1662 Synod, “Consultation is used to seek and accept help from and give help unto each other.”
Some of the occasions or some of these ecclesiastical problems would be first: in doubtful and difficult questions and controversies, doctrinal or practical, that may arise. Like in Acts 15, there was a difficulty in doctrine and practice, and they consulted with each other. It was a circumcision and justification controversy. We could face doctrinal controversies amongst sister churches or within one of our churches, and that would be an occasion for consultation.
There is another occasion or another ecclesiastical problem. Quoting from one of those congregational documents: “In cases of divisions and contentions whereby the peace of any church is disturbed.”
Recall that the Jerusalem council began, if you will, with trouble within the Antioch church that arose as a result of teaching there in Antioch, that originated with men who had come down from Judea. So there was a case of division and contention in which the peace of at least one church was disturbed.
Here is another ecclesiastical problem: “For the rectifying of maladministration and healing of errors and scandals that are unhealed among themselves,” that is churches, so there might be a breach or something like that. A mirror image of this particular point is this from the 1662 Synod: “In love and faithfulness [they said] we must take notice of the troubles and difficulties, errors and scandals of another church, and to administer help when the case manifestly calls for it, though they should so neglect their own good and duty as not to seek it.” In other words, hopefully a church would say “we need help,” but sometimes people don’t do that, whether individuals or churches. If we see, “Hey, they need help,” maybe we should pick up the phone and say something, ask a question; consultation.
8) Congregation.
Then eighth: congregation, assembly of messengers from many churches.
They are talking here first about occasional meetings, in order words not set regular meetings, and that, in fact, is what is described in our Confession in that last paragraph, occasional meetings.
Just a side note here—regardless of what people say about the gatherings described in the 15th paragraph of that 26th chapter, they are clearly occasional meetings.
Listen to the wording, “In cases of difficulties or differences,” that’s a key phrase, “difficulties or differences,” alright? So, there is a case of a difficulty or difference, “It is according to the mind of Christ that many churches holding communion do, by their messengers, meet to read in order to consider and give their advice in or about that matter in difference.”
In other words, they’re meeting to discuss that particular matter; that’s what the Confession says. It teaches that in cases of difficulties or differences representatives of sister churches ought to meet together to discuss those cases and give advice regarding those matters. That’s occasional meetings and I will say more about that under the last heading.
Then regular meetings, as well. When I say that these were occasional meetings described in the Confession I’m not saying other regular meetings are not therefore legitimate. If someone had an association, and our Baptist forefathers did have associations, that is the kind of thing that I’d be talking about here, regular meetings.
Our church in Minneapolis was in a small regional association, I think the church there still is. They have regular meetings I think quarterly. We have here fraternal meetings, they are not a formal association but they are regular meetings among pastors from sister churches. This meeting here happens every year, doesn’t it? It is a regular meeting, if you will, of churches, messengers from churches who are in fellowship with one another. The fact of the matter is, many or at least some of the other elements or maybe most of communion of churches that are mentioned in this outline happen here.
I was engaging in consultation without consciously thinking of it, when we had a discussion at the lunch table about the Lord’s Supper, whether someone from a paedobaptist church should be permitted to the Lord’s Supper etc. We had a good healthy discussion; it was consultation. So, congregation or assembly of messengers from many churches.
9) Admonition.
Finally, ninthly: admonition. Admonition.
If you’re familiar with some of the arguments of Roman Catholic Church apologists, on the positive side, they like to use the unity of the Roman Catholic Church as a strong argument in favor of the fact that everyone should be a Roman Catholic, and it is the True Church. On the negative side, they like to point out the propensity and we could say the history of Baptists to divide and divide seemingly ad infinitum. Well, there is a degree of truth to that. It’s not all bad. It’s not for bad reasons that there is division in this sin cursed world and even the professing Church of Christ. It has often been over theological differences that churches have divided however large or small, but it has perhaps as often been over personal differences and offenses that churches, sadly, have divided. To the degree that that’s the case, it is really a shame. It is a shame that once-close churches and brethren separate over some matter with sin at its root, without any serious efforts to be reconciled. That’s how we should look at it. That is the subject of the last paragraph of the chapter of the church in our Confession, and this is the task over which churches in our day have had perhaps the least agreement and the most debate. How seriously people have believed and how effectively they have practiced what is taught there in that point in the Confession, by churches I know in my lifetime I cannot say. Let’s look at this subject of admonition.
First of all, let’s look at what it is.
The Congregationalist would say this: that is the application of Matthew 18: 15-17 on a corporate level. That’s what it is. Question: why do this? Their basic answer—and I believe it’s a biblical one—is this: that we are interrelated one to another and therefore accountable to one another.
Interchurch unity is important, just as intra-church unity is important. My title ‘unity among churches,’ meaning both within churches and between churches. Remember the things I said about the Puritans’ view of those texts that mention our individual accountability and necessity for unity and love, and they applied it on a broader basis. The point is we should care about interchurch unity. I’m sure you all do sitting here, and if we know there are problems we should reject the idea that we should simply pretend that no problem exists, we should reject the notion that if there is a problem it is none of our business, and we should reject the notion that we are doing our duty if we simply hold quiet fellowship with two churches we know which are at odds with one another.
“Blessed [Jesus said] are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”
Cain answered, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” We know the answer to that question.
Leviticus 19:17 says, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, you shall surely rebuke your neighbor and not bear sin because of him.”
We are interrelated as the churches of Christ. (1 Corinthians 12.) Otherwise, start being consistent and practice closed communion. We are accountable to one another. I would prefer to use the phrase: we are answerable to one another and reprovable by one another. I would like that as a replacement. However, it’s too cumbersome and the word ‘accountability’ is a good word if we rightly understand it.
Listen to the Cambridge Platform talking about this duty of admonition between churches:
But if a church be rent with division amongst themselves or lie under any open scandal, and yet refuse to consult with other churches for healing or removing of the same, it is a matter of just offense both to the Lord Jesus and to other churches as betraying too much want of mercy and faithfulness not to seek to bind up the breaches and wound of the church and brethren, and therefore the state of such a church calleth aloud upon other churches to exercise a fuller act of brotherly communion to it by way of admonition.
People have raised objections to any accountability between churches on the grounds that accountability means or includes or requires some degree of authority or subordination or hierarchy, but that is a faulty premise.
To illustrate: you would all agree that a husband is accountable to, that is, answerable to and reprovable by his wife. Although that does not place him under his wife’s authority. He’s answerable to his wife; he’s accountable to her.
Listen to—this is that document that I mentioned early on An Apologetical Narration by Goodwin Burroughs written in 1643: “It is the most to be abhorred maxim, that any religion hath ever made profession of.” Now maybe this is hyperbole, but it tells you how strongly they felt about this. They were in the midst of the controversy within the Westminster Assembly about what was the Church of England gonna be like. But listen, “It is the most to be abhorred maxim, that any religion hath ever made mention of, and therefore of all other the most contradictory and dishonorable unto that of Christianity that a single and particular society of men professing the name of Christ [a church] and pretending to be endowed with a power from Christ to judge them that are of the same body and society within themselves [a congregational church] should further arrogate unto themselves an exemption from giving account or being censurable by any other neighbor churches about them.”
That’s what they believed, and when they said “censurable by” what they meant was ‘reproved.’ They said other churches have the right to reprove us. They weren’t using it in the technical way that it is used in the Confession to talk about formal discipline. They wrote our chapter, the same men basically, they wrote the chapter of our Confession by and large.
Think about it, there’s a sense, is there not, in which we live in a way that we are accountable even to unbelievers in this world. Paul said in 2 Corinthians 8:21, “Providing honorable things not only in the sight of the Lord but also in the sight of men.” Or Titus chapter 2, verse 5 regarding younger women, “That the word of God may not be blasphemed.” They are to live in a certain way so that the word of God may not be blasphemed. In other words, it matters what other people think about us even in the world!
Or verse 8 of Titus 2, about Titus himself Paul says, “Live in this way so that one who is an opponent may be ashamed having nothing evil to say of you.” Now, this accountability is not the same as our accountability to God and it is not the same as our accountability to the church. Ultimately our accountability is only to God; I understand that. “Against You, You only have I sinned,” but we all know that when David says that he means ultimately, ultimately. He’s not saying he’s not accountable to men. Paul said likewise, “From those who seem to be something whatever they were it makes no difference to me.” In other words, Paul is saying “I am not accountable to apostles” in some sense, only to God. He followed his conscience. But this is why we do this, if you will, it’s because we are accountable to one another, that is why we would admonish another church or ask whether we should.
The next question is: how does this work? Well, the Puritans used this language, “It would work via spiritual pressure” as opposed to formal acts of discipline to enforce anything.
So, for instance, you you are not a member of Trinity Baptist church; I am a member of Trinity Baptist church. You are aware of some sin or inconsistency in me, so you question me. Maybe you feel the need then to reprove me. Hopefully I receive it meekly and you see some fruits, and maybe later on we meet again somewhere and you remind me of our conversation. You ask me how are you doing? That’s the kind of thing; that the idea: spiritual pressure. You have no ability to exercise any kind of formal censure against me, but you’re admonishing me. That’s the kind of thing they are talking about.
Then they’re saying we can do this at a corporate level. That’s what they’re saying, just like these other things. They take a text about a Christian’s obligation to another Christian and they say that’s the obligation of Christians to other Christians in other churches. Maybe you agree with this; maybe you don’t. I just raise the questions: what is biblical or what is unbiblical about it? I say this, if the principles are biblical, another question then is: why would it work or why would it not work? Which, again, is a question for another day.
I, personally, think it is good what our forefathers said on this subject. So what I am going to do with remaining time here is answer these four objections, and I’ll be done, because objections come under these things.
We can do that, why? Because we believe in local church autonomy.
The first thing I would say about that objection is that there is another word you should believe in a word that also begins in a vowel and ends with a Y and its UNITY. We should believe in interchurch unity as well. So I would say get a better understanding of autonomy. Personally, I am happy with the statements of our Confession, page 26, paragraph 4, 7, and 15. They make very clear statements about autonomy of the local church.
‘Autonomy’ means that we find in the Bible no official human authority, no authority structure above the local church. No pope, bishop, presbytery, synod, classes, assembly, council, committee, board or whatever else you want to put in the blank, nothing above the local church. But autonomy does not mean that we are an island, and it does not mean that we have disregard for unity and the church universal. It should not mean that. It does not mean that we are content to let every man fend for himself, or that our interchurch squabbles are no one else’s business, or that we are answerable to no one, or that we may suspend or disregard scriptural principles in relationships that cross church lines. That’s the first objection: we believe in local church autonomy.
The second objection in Matthew 18 only applies to local churches. You all know the passage, “If your brother offends you go to him alone” etc. and then you end with the matter of church discipline. Some people say, “This passage only applies in situations where church discipline can result,” potentially at least. Only to passages where church discipline can be exercised, and obviously that is only within the local congregation. Well, if that is what you say about that passage, do you also refuse to preach 1 Corinthians 13 at a wedding, since it has to do with churches experiencing problems with charismatic gifts in their midst and not with married couples? Or similarly, do you deny (Matthew 18) that where two or three are gathered Christ is in their midst? Do you believe that that’s relevant week by week when you gather to worship as a church, even when no church discipline is on the agenda? You see what I am saying? There are principles in Matthew 18 that do apply to us as we relate to one another, even if we are not members of the same church.
Goodwin wrote in the constitution, right, order, and government of the churches of Christ, volume 11, and he said:
The analogy of Matthew 18 is urged to be as well between a church offending and other churches as between a brother and congregation. We shall not be against this analogy for the like way of proceeding, only we are against the like authority of proceeding.
In order words, we do not have authority over others like a church does over an individual member, but we do have responsibility to our Christian brethren in other churches. In other words, we should have no qualms about applying the principles of Matthew 18 in interchurch affairs. That is what Goodwin was saying. The only reservation is we cannot follow it to a conclusion of a judicial act, excommunication. We faithfully teach—I hope this is true about all of us—we faithfully teach and follow the scriptural obligations and directives for interpersonal relationships in private matters. I hope you do that in your own life; I hope you do that in your church. We should not take the liberty to suspend those biblical principles (this is Goodwin’s argument in effect) in ecclesiastical matters. What we see in the Bible tells us, I believe, that we ought to use every legitimate means to pursue peace in the body of Christ, and that we recognize that not all of the legitimate means to pursue and maintain peace are found within each local church for every situation.
Then another argument: “Well, we can’t do that since there are no more apostles; there are no more people whose obligation it is to look out for the welfare of every single church.”
Here is what John Cotton wrote about that:
We look at it as our duty [that is, our churches, congregational churches] we look at it as our duty to be faithful one church to another in like sort as the brethren of our church are called to be faithful one towards another. Do not church enjoy brotherly communion one to another as well as brethren of the same church? The church in the canonicals [Song of Solomon] took care not only for her own members but for her little sister which had no breasts, and would she had taken no care of having her breast healed if her breasts had been distempered and given corrupt milk? The apostles had a public care by virtue of their office of all the churches [2 Corinthians 11:28] and is the public spirit of grace and love dead with them? Ought not all the churches of Christ to have a care and a watchful eyes over the public good of one another, though not by virtue of office, yet by virtue of charity [or by virtue of love]?
In my message last year I made the point, if your friendship crosses church lines (in order words, if you have a friend in a different church from your own, local church) it should be willing to cross church lines in all the duties of friendship. We should not be touchy about people asking us questions. They just make an inquiry, and we should not be nosy either. We should not be touchy about admonitions, as the statement I read earlier from the apologetical narration.
Now, we don’t just go around making pronouncements or budding into places where we should not. I’m not saying that.
Listen to this quote from Burroughs; I think I read it last year. He talked about admonishing someone else when you know the situation. He said, “Perhaps you had some ministers or other come to your table and they tell you a tale of such and such. Your heart is hot presently, but do you understand the matter? You begin to make a stir, but can you give account of it?” In other words, you don’t really know what it is all about. He says, “Be silent, forebear, and take heed of what you do. Meddle not in ways of strife until you understand where the controversy lies, and that from both parties.” I take from that he’s saying as a general rule you should be invited. I would say this: that if both parties in a dispute that you know of are truly your friends I would not wait for a written invitation. I wouldn’t wait at least to ask.
What was the correct answer to that question: am I my brother’s keeper? Put together what we’ve seen just in this brief part of this message and then in the 31 resolutions from last year. We should adopt rules like these: you absolutely don’t gossip, you may have an obligation, however, to inquire depending on the circumstance and your relationship to the person or parties, but then third you don’t judge or admonish, and I would add to that even blame till you fully understand the situation, as Burroughs says “from both sides.”
Let me say something about this principle of mutual love. The Puritans addressed the idea that only apostles could do things like admonish churches, because that’s what some people would say. In order words it crosses church lines, so they addresses that subject. I quoted this earlier, but here is one of the things they said:“Churches now have need of help in like cases as well as churches then, [in the apostolic age] Christ’s care is still for whole churches as well as for particular persons and apostles being now ceased there remains the duty of brotherly love and mutual care and helpfulness incumbent upon churches especially elders for that end.” Remember, they did not, some particular Baptists did, but these Congregationalists did not argue for the creation of an office similar to that of an apostle. They just said this is the duty of elders of churches.
Many of us are familiar with the words of Owen, “The bond of this union [meaning between churches] is love.” He made that in volume 16.
Brethren, let’s remember love includes recognizing the obligation to live in peace with brethren. Love includes not ignoring sins that are committed by our brethren. Love includes not ignoring problems that arise among our brethren. Love includes not regarding our brethren’s problems as their own. Love includes addressing the sins of our brethren if necessary. Love includes being ready to be reconciled. Love includes receiving admonitions from brethren. Love includes not separating hastily and over petty matters. Love includes not backbiting, whispering or gossiping. Love includes not giving up striving for peace when one is rebuffed. Love includes being willing to use every legitimate measure to maintain, promote or restore peace. All these things the Bible teaches about love.
This the puritans knew, and this conviction lay behind their interchurch polity.
So three objections. We believe in local church autonomy; Matthew 18; there are no more apostles; forth and finally: there will be too many councils, if this is what we did, if we tried to take that paragraph in the Confession and live it out there will be too many councils and that’s what we would be doing, spending all of the rest of our ecclesiastical lives.
To answer that I would say two basic things. One: that is not a necessary logic conclusion. This objection is comparable to assuming that here’s a church that exercises church discipline. Their Constitution says they would excommunicate unrepentant sinners, therefore that proves that that church is eager to excommunicate their members. But the fact is that a church like that, if it consists of godly people, even though they write it in their Constitution “we are gonna do this if it’s necessary,” if a church consists of godly people they hope they never have to carry out church discipline. That’s the way it was among the Congregationalists in New England. That was their experience.
Listen to Cotton writing in 1695, 12 years after he came to New England. He said, “We have never yet been put to the utmost extent of this duty of admonition towards any of our churches. The Lord hitherto so far preventing with His grace that no church hath stood out so long in maintaining any offense found amongst them.” Why did that happen? Because there was an understanding and a commitment to open and Christian dealings with one another.
The point that I will close on, and the point I would make here is simply this brethren: we need a climate and an ethos in which that can happen, and it should come through mutual understanding and commitment to biblical principles in our relations with one another. If someone says to me, “what are you suggesting?” Nothing more than that am I suggesting. I am not suggesting anything in terms of any kind of system other than what I just said: agreement regarding and commitment to what we believe the Scriptures require of us in this regard.
I said last year, as I mentioned the 31 resolutions, that interchurch communion in large measure rests upon communion of pastors with one another. So, it all has to begin with our personal lives and practice. May God help us to be committed to Scriptural principles in the way we relate to one another, and may God help us to love the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. “For her my tears shall fall.” May God help us, brethren! Let’s pray.
Father in Heaven, we thank you for Your Word and how it guides and direct us. We ask that as we think about all these matters of interchurch communion and relations to one another that You would give us grace that we would have truly loving, open relationships with one another, that we would pursue love, that we would pursue unity in the Church of Christ as far as we can and that we would seek to love the Church and love Zion above our own lives. May we seek the glory of Christ in these ways. Father, build greater unity among the churches represented here and all the churches of Christ. We know that we live in a fallen world and we cannot be utopians in that sense, but we ask that we would live as those in whom the grace of God has been implanted by the work of Your Spirit and that we would be manifest to all who know us. In Jesus Christ name. Amen.
© Copyright | Derechos Reservados