PRELIMINARY POINTS
Our inquiries into this subject must of necessity be rooted
and grounded in love — love of God and His most holy commandments, and
also love for our brethren. This subject, above all others, is filled with
hidden perils; at every step, we must openly and honestly examine our motives:
Does personal animosity or personal preference affect our decisions? Are we
being honest with our Father in Heaven, Who discerns even the intents of our
hearts? Are we being truly sympathetic and considerate of our brethren
“for whom Christ died”? Where do pride and stubbornness fit into the
picture?
One theme emerging from our study is this: New Testament
disfellowship (or withdrawal) was always intended to lead to the
reclamation of the offender. The break in unity was always viewed as
temporary, and the New Testament ideal was realized in the ecclesia striving to
win back the erring brother. It follows, then, that disfellowship — now
matter how carefully performed according to the letter of Matthew 18 — is
unscriptural if not followed by a campaign for recovery and reunion just as
painstaking and strenuous.
In our studies as they unfold we note also the inherent
conflict of majority versus unanimity. In brief, must all members of an ecclesia
(or group of ecclesias) concur with every action of the ecclesia
involving “fellowship”? Must the dissenter from the ecclesial action
also be dealt with in the same fashion as was the original offender? What about
silence? Is it to be construed as consent or dissent? And, finally, how should
the very real elements of distance and time affect our “fellowship”
decisions? It may be beyond the ability of any brother to give full and
satisfying answers to such questions. But, on the other hand, to ignore or
bypass the difficulties is hardly honest. All we can hope to do is offer a
little help in the unraveling of such complexities.
Robert Roberts has made a statement that is quite relevant to
our study:
“It is possible to go too far in our demands on
fellow-believers. How far we ought to go and where to stop, is at one time or
other a perplexing problem to most earnest minds....” (“True
Principles and Uncertain Details”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 92,
No. 1097 — Nov. 1955 — p. 414).
We should at least be aware that this is a
“perplexing problem”! We should often come back to this question: Is
it more dangerous to be too lenient than to be too strict? The philosophy of
some brethren would seem to be: ‘Give the Lord the benefit of the doubt,
and cut the doubtful one off!’ Such brethren consider themselves to
be ‘on the safe side’, but are they? It is to the Bible that we must
go to find an answer.
