Views: 2<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n A certain city of 15,000 people has two congregations which have the name \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d on their buildings. Congregation \u201cA\u201d has eight hundred members; congregation \u201cB\u201d two hundred. For the past fifteen years congregation \u201cA\u201d has become progressively \u201csofter\u201d in its teaching and has emphasized social issues more and more. It has consistently used guest preachers who are on the cutting-edge of liberal thought on such subjects as verbal inspiration of the Bible, the distinctiveness of the church, scriptural worship, the necessity of baptism, the work of the holy spirit, fellowship, divorce and remarriage, and such like. Its preacher joined the local ministerial alliance a few years ago and has no problem joining with the denominations in their \u201cEaster\u201d and \u201cChristmas\u201d celebrations. He willingly sits on the platform with the denominational \u201cpastors\u201d and sings hymns to the moaning of their organs at such affairs. He has already swapped pulpits with some of these \u201cpastors.\u201d Congregation \u201cA\u201d has begun to accept members from denominational groups which either practice sprinkling or which practice immersion while denying the necessity of the act for salvation.<\/span><\/p>\n Congregation \u201cB\u201d has elders who are determined that the church they oversee will submit to the authority of the Scriptures in all that it does and teaches. This congregation has become increasingly uncomfortable with the behavior of its sister congregation across town. The elders of \u201cB\u201d have expressed their concerns to the elders of \u201cA\u201d more than once, only to receive denials that they have changed or to be told (in a polite way, of course) to mind their own business. Finally, congregation \u201cB\u201d cannot tolerate being identified with congregation \u201cA\u201d any longer. Everyone in town can see that \u201cA\u201d is much different from \u201cB\u201d (even though they do not realize why). The townspeople applaud the obvious \u201cnew\u201d attitude of change, syncretism, and tolerance they can see in \u201cA\u201d which has made it largely indistinguishable from their own denominations, except for the name, \u201cChurch of Christ,\u201d which is still on the building. The elders of \u201cB\u201d want to maintain their scriptural identity and distinguish themselves from \u201cA\u201d for the sake of the members of \u201cB,\u201d for the sake of members of \u201cA\u201d who might be salvaged, and for the sake of their fellow-citizens.<\/span><\/p>\n The elders of \u201cB\u201d fully recognize that the practices and doctrines of \u201cA\u201d are heretical and unauthorized and that they have forfeited their scriptural identity. They would like to lead \u201cB\u201d in withdrawing fellowship from \u201cA,\u201d announcing this action alike to the congregation, to the elders of \u201cA,\u201d and to the city by means of a newspaper announcement. However, an influential preacher\u2014editor of an influential brotherhood journal\u2014has convinced the preacher and elders at congregation \u201cB\u201d that there is no scriptural authority for one church to \u201cmark and avoid\u201d another. They therefore have resigned themselves to the idea that they are helpless to do anything more about their predicament. Since \u201cB\u201d cannot publicly withdraw from \u201cA,\u201d the whole town assumes that \u201cB\u201d is in agreement with \u201cA\u201d and that \u201cA\u201d represents what the Church of Christ actually is everywhere. The cause of truth and righteousness suffer mightily, error has a field day, and the devil gains a distinct advantage.<\/span><\/p>\n If it is wrong now for one church to withdraw from another, it has always been wrong to do so. Please read on. Do we owe the people in the independent Christian and the Disciples of Christ denominations a long-overdue apology? From approximately 1875 through 1906 hundreds of congregations that were once true to the old paths of authorized worship and work adopted the mechanical instrument in their worship and the missionary society in their work. As they did so one by one, they apostatized and lost their identity as Churches of Christ. Congregations which refused these innovations marked, dissociated themselves from, and ceased their fellowship with those churches that adopted them. By 1906 the apostasy was so apparent that the federal census recognized the Churches of Christ and the Christian church (which since 1926 has been composed of the Disciples and the Independents) as separate entities. Many (perhaps most) of those \u201cprogressive\u201d congregations wore (and some still wear) the name \u201cChurch of Christ.\u201d Not only should we apologize to these apostate sects, but while we are at it, we should also censure, even at this late date, our spiritual forebears in the congregations who dared do the withdrawing. They had no scriptural right to do so because one church cannot withdraw from another church<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n The previous paragraph is written with admitted (and we trust obvious) sarcasm and irony in an effort to emphasize what this writer believes to be an unfounded and absurd position. The notable preacher\/editor and the preacher and elders of congregation \u201cB\u201d above represent the teaching of some otherwise faithful brethren among us, namely that one congregation cannot withdraw from another congregation.<\/span><\/p>\n If <\/strong>this contention is correct, the elders of congregation \u201cB\u201d above cannot even tell those under their oversight to have no fellowship with congregation \u201cA.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n If <\/strong>this contention is correct, we should indeed censure our faithful brethren of yore.<\/span><\/p>\n If <\/strong>this contention is correct, we would most certainly owe those in the two-fold Christian \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0church denomination a genuine apology for the mistreatment they received.<\/span><\/p>\n If <\/strong>this contention is correct, furthermore, consistency would demand that we actually restore fellowship and work hand in hand with them with no change on their part.<\/span><\/p>\n Do the scriptures authorize, explicitly or implicitly, one congregation to withdraw from another? This is a relevant question for every age because of the possibility of apostasy on the part of entire congregations in every age, including the first century (Rev. 2\u20133).1<\/sup> We have for some years been in the midst of a vast apostasy among the Lord\u2019s people, fostered by a veritable conspiracy of liberals among us who are bent on \u201cdumbing down\u201d the scriptural identity of the body of Christ to make it fit the mold of human religious orders. With hundreds of congregations already swept away in the current digression, the question before us is particularly appropriate for our time. Let us study the subject of withdrawing fellowship, especially as it pertains to this question.<\/span><\/p>\n Some Basic Concepts Concerning Fellowship in The New Testament<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Obtaining and maintaining fellowship <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Since detailed discussion of such concepts as the definition of New Testament fellowship, how spiritual fellowship with others is obtained, and how it is maintained may be found elsewhere, only brief mention will be made of them here. Our English word fellowship <\/em>translates the Greek word koinonia<\/em>, found in both noun and verb forms in the New Testament. It has to do with sharing things in common, joint participation, partnership, and like ideas. The basis of fellowship among men is their common fellowship with Deity: \u201cyea, and our fellowship is with the father, and with his son Jesus Christ\u201d (1 John 1:3). only when two or more people have established fellowship with God and his Son can they thereby be in fellowship with each other.<\/span><\/p>\n Men are sinners (rom. 6:23), and sin separates men from God and his perfect holiness (Isa. 59:1\u20132). Through his sacrifice on the cross, Christ has made it possible for men to be reconciled to God (\u201cthat he might bring us to God,\u201d 1 Pet. 3:18). This establishment of fellowship is possible only when men are freed from the guilt of their sins, which is accomplished when the penitent believer repents and is baptized in order to receive forgiveness (Acts 2:37\u201338). This statement is true because the lord has chosen the act of immersion in water (based upon the appropriate precedents) as the act in which he washes the sinner of his sins in the cleansing blood of Christ (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5; Rom. 6:3). Some three thousand people responded to the Pentecost preaching in this very way (Acts 2:41), and they are immediately described as being and continuing in fellowship with each other (v. 42). By this means men enter into fellowship with God and thereby with one another.<\/span><\/p>\n However, continuing in fellowship with God and with other men is not a given\u2014men can forfeit their fellowship with God. Note the conditionality of John\u2019s statement of this fact: \u201cif we say that we have fellowship with Him [God, dm] and walk in the darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another…\u201d (1 John 1:6\u20137). Note the following:<\/span><\/p>\n When persons in the same geographical location are obedient to the truth, cleansed of their sins, and come into fellowship with God and with one another, they constitute the Lord\u2019s people, the Church, in that location. The three thousand who came into fellowship with God and each other on Jerusalem\u201d (8:1; 11:22; cf. 15:4) until and unless they moved elsewhere (8:4). The same was true in Antioch of Syria (11:26; 13:1), Antioch of Pisidia, Lystra, and Derbe (14:23), and likewise in every place on the New Testament map where the seed of the kingdom bore its fruit (cf. Acts 20:17; 1 cor. 1:2; Col. 4:15\u201316; 1 The. 1:1; et al.). It has ever since remained so as the Lord continues to add saved ones to his church.<\/span><\/p>\n Obviously, the individuals within these respective congregations had fellowship with the other members thereof, even as we do presently. In addition, these congregations<\/strong>, though separated by hundreds or thousands of miles, also had fellowship with each other, as congregations<\/strong>. When the Jerusalem church heard of the church in Antioch of Syria, she extended her fellowship by sending the good man Barnabas to assist them (Acts 11:22\u201324). Sometime later, the church in Antioch expressed its fellowship with the Jerusalem church and other Judean congregations by sending a financial contribution to its needs (vv. 27\u201330). Various congregations had fellowship with the Corinthian church by supplying Paul\u2019s support while he worked there (1 Cor. 11:8). This fellowship between congregations is also seen in the bounty Paul gathered from many congregations in the Gentile provinces to meet the needs of the Jerusalem church (Rom. 15:25\u201327; 1 Cor. 16:1\u20132; 2 Cor. 8\u20139). The churches in the provinces had fellowship with each other, and they all had fellowship with the Jerusalem church. Surely none would question the existence of fellowship among the New Testament congregations. Such fellowship between faithful congregations of the Lord\u2019s people continues to the present.<\/span><\/p>\n Fellowship can be forfeited and withdrawn <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In light of the foregoing, particularly the statement from 1 John 1:6\u20137, one should not be surprised that the New Testament has much to say about the forfeiture of fellowship. The warnings of apostasy are many and frequent. Likewise, the instructions that relate to dealing with impenitent, sinful brethren are plain and profuse. These passages have to do with what may appropriately be called \u201ccorrective church discipline,\u201d and they relate directly to the withdrawal of fellowship from such brethren.<\/span><\/p>\n In one sense almost the entire New Testament has to do with spiritual discipline\u2014 bringing and keeping the flesh and spirit under control of the word of god so that the soul may be saved at last. However, there are at least sixty-eight verses that relate directly to the corrective side of spiritual discipline, in which are specified a wide range of sins (if unrepented of) that cannot be ignored. The requirement of us to withdraw fellowship from such erring brethren is principally based upon the fact that such ones have already forfeited their fellowship with God. We must make a choice: if we would remain in fellowship with God, we cannot remain in fellowship with such brethren. The reader\u2019s attention is called to a few of these at this juncture, while several others will be referred to later.<\/span><\/p>\n The Lord spoke as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican (Mat. 18:15\u201317).<\/span><\/p>\n Paul penned a very plain statement to the Romans on this subject:<\/span><\/p>\n Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent (Rom. 16:17\u201318).<\/span><\/p>\n Paul\u2019s imperative statement to the Thessalonian church is also explicit:<\/span><\/p>\n Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us…. And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed. And yet count him not as an enemy but admonish him as a brother (2 The. 3:6\u201315).<\/span><\/p>\n Although John is popularly called the \u201capostle of love,\u201d he did not shrink from writing clearly on this subject:<\/span><\/p>\n Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works (1 John 1:9\u201311).<\/span><\/p>\n We call attention to some bold, crucial terms in the foregoing passages: \u201clet him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican,\u201d \u201cmark…, turn away from,\u201d \u201cwe command…that ye withdraw yourselves,\u201d \u201cnote that man,…have no company with him,\u201d \u201creceive him not into your house, and give him no greeting.\u201d Many other passages forcefully and clearly set forth the responsibility for exercising corrective discipline (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:3\u20134, 19\u201320; 6:20\u201321; 2 tim. 3:8\u20139; tit. 1:9\u201311; 3:10\u201311; et al.). The entirety of 1 Corinthians 5 is devoted to this sobering subject.<\/span><\/p>\n Undeniably, the Lord\u2019s people are taught to keep the church pure, not only by sound doctrine (Gal. 1:6\u20139; 2 Tim. 4:2\u20134; et al.), but by the withdrawal of fellowship from those who stubbornly refuse to be bound by it. The teaching is so clear that no reasonably intelligent person can fail to grasp it. No excuse warrants our neglect of this responsibility when circumstances demand it. If human laws are enacted against it, we must serve the higher law of God. If judges rule against it, we must still submit to the Judge of Judges. With the courageous apostles we must take our stand: \u201cwe must obey God rather than men\u201d (Acts 5:29).<\/span><\/p>\n Sins That Demand Withdrawal of Fellowship<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Doctrinal errors <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Numerous passages not only warn of doctrinal errors, but they specify the exercise of discipline upon those who teach them. Timothy was to \u201c…charge certain men not to teach a different doctrine\u201d (1 Tim. 1:3). Hymenaeus and Alexander, who had made \u201cshipwreck of the faith,\u201d were to be \u201cdelivered unto Satan\u201d (a reference to their being expelled from the fellowship of the saints in Ephesus) (vv. 19\u201320). The Ephesians had to turn away from certain others because they \u201cerred concerning the faith\u201d (6:20\u201321). Hymenaeus and Philetus had to be shunned because they were destroying the faith of others by teaching that the resurrection had already occurred (2 Tim. 2:16\u201318). Elders are charged with the task of stopping the mouths of and sharply reproving gainsayers, vain talkers, deceivers, teachers of fables and commandments of men, and those who turn away from the truth (Tit. 1:9\u201314). As earlier noted, those who promote teaching contrary to that of the apostles and who beguile the hearts of the innocent are to be marked and turned away from (Rom. 16:17\u201318). Also, as previously mentioned, those who do not abide in the things which Christ taught are not to be given our hospitality or even greeted in such a way as to be encouraged in their false teaching (2 John 9\u201311). Clearly, false teachers who cannot be reclaimed for the truth are to be withdrawn from.<\/span><\/p>\n Ungodly division <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n We specify \u201cungodly <\/strong>division\u201d because God approves of, yea demands, some division. In fact, when a brother or sister must be withdrawn from, a division between that person and the church occurs, but it is one that God demands. Ungodly, unauthorized division includes:<\/span><\/p>\n Miscellaneous causes <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The New Testament\u2019s lengthiest treatment of corrective discipline is aimed primarily at the sin of fornication (1 Cor. 5:1\u20139). However, the same passage also enjoins disciplinary treatment of those who are covetous, idolaters, revilers (those who verbally abuse others), drunkards, and extortioners (v. 11). A text earlier noticed commands the church to withdraw from the \u201cdisorderly,\u201d from a Greek term used especially in a military context to denote those who break rank or who are insubordinate (2 The. 3:6). Paul uses the term here to describe those \u201cthat work not at all, but are busybodies\u201d (v. 11), but it is a broad term capable of referring to any conduct that expresses rebellion against the word of God. Likewise, those who would not obey Paul\u2019s word by means of this letter were to be marked by and refused the company of the faithful (v. 14). The elders in Crete were to discipline the \u201cunruly,\u201d a term referring to those who were undisciplined, disobedient, rebellious. (a brother who will not discipline himself must be disciplined by his brethren.) Again, we have a term broad enough to include any sort of impenitent departure from truth and righteousness.<\/span><\/p>\n So far as we know, faithful brethren down through the years have all but universally given at least lip-service to the fact that the New Testament explicitly enjoins the practice of withdrawal of fellowship from <\/strong>somebody by <\/strong>somebody! (unfortunately, there have been relatively few congregations that have found the spiritual fortitude to execute it.) But to whom do these instructions apply? Who is to execute them? Are these instructions limited to congregational action toward its members alone and\/or to individual saints and their behavior toward other individuals? Those who deny that one congregation can either mark or identify and withdraw fellowship from another congregation are forced to limit every passage that orders withdrawal of the disorderly only to one or both of the aforementioned applications. But do these passages have any application to broader relations of fellowship, particularly to relationships between congregations of the Lord\u2019s people? Do faithful congregations (and\/or individuals, for that matter) have the right <\/strong>(not to say, for the moment, the duty<\/strong>) to publicly identify and withdraw fellowship from unfaithful, apostate congregations? Here we come to the real burden of this treatise.<\/span><\/p>\n Some Scriptures and Their Implications Concerning Inter-Congregational Relations<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Acts 9:26: <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAnd when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.\u201d This passage describes the attempt by Saul of Tarsus to \u201cplace membership\u201d with the Jerusalem church when he returned to the city for the first time since his conversion. He was converted in Damascus and was a member of the congregation there (vv. 10\u201325). The congregation in Jerusalem refused to extend fellowship to him until Barnabas, whom they knew well and trusted, vouched for him (vv. 27\u201329). Admittedly, the brethren in Jerusalem erred in their assessment of this individual case involving Saul, but will anyone argue that they erred in principle? Does a congregation not have the right to question the faithfulness of one who seeks to join himself to it? Must elders of a congregation accept anyone without question who seeks membership? Barnabas did not question the right of the Jerusalem brethren to reject Saul or anyone else who sought membership in the congregation. He only testified to the genuineness of Saul\u2019s conversion and dedication, proving that he <\/strong>was worthy of their fellowship. Remember, Saul was not a member of the Jerusalem church but of that in Damascus. This case demonstrates therefore that a congregation <\/strong>can take action involving the refusal of fellowship against one who is a member of another congregation<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 15:22\u201323: <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote thus by them, the apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting.<\/span><\/p>\n Admittedly the letter which follows in verses 24\u201329 had the authority of apostolic wisdom behind it. However, this does not alter the following facts:<\/span><\/p>\n Romans 16:17\u201318: <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent.<\/span><\/p>\n Will anyone argue that this injunction to mark and turn away from false teachers who caused division applied only if the heretics were members <\/strong>of the Roman church? If so, then it must follow that it would be permissible for them to embrace Judaizing teachers who might come from Jerusalem or resurrection-deniers from Corinth. If a congregation may refuse to extend fellowship to and may warn others about the apostasy of one person <\/strong>who is part of another congregation (as demonstrated by the implications of the passage above), may a congregation do the same concerning two or three apostate members <\/strong>from elsewhere? If so, may the congregation do so concerning two or three dozen<\/strong>? Why does it then become wrong if it is done to a congregation of two or three hundred<\/strong>? If congregations may not withdraw and\/or withhold their fellowship from any but their own local members, then congregations are left without defense against identity with and\/or attack from one or one hundred apostates from without. As in the case of Saul and the Jerusalem church (acts 9:26), so also this passage implies that a congregation <\/strong>can take action involving the refusal of fellowship against one who is a member of another congregation<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 10:20\u201321: <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have communion with demons. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons.<\/span><\/p>\n This passage demonstrates that it is wrong for one person in the Corinthian church (thus for the whole church) to have fellowship with one demon (thus with a church composed of or devoted to demons). It is thus mandatory that a church <\/strong>have no fellowship with a church <\/strong>not in fellowship with God. This being so, how can it be wrong for a church to identify or mark a church of demons and announce that it has no fellowship with it? \u201cbut the \u2018church of demons\u2019 in Corinth never was in fellowship with God,\u201d someone demurs. True, but suppose its members had once been in fellowship with God and drifted into demonism, thus forming the \u201cchurch of demons\u201d? Would this mean that the faithful congregation could not then mark it and disfellowship it? If so, the logic behind this conclusion is mysterious in the extreme.<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 6:14\u201318: <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? Or what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? For we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be to you a Father, and ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.<\/span><\/p>\n This statement indicates that it is possible (though displeasing to God) for saints to be in an unequal and unholy fellowship with unbelievers. This letter was written to the \u201cchurch of God which is at Corinth\u201d (1:1), so it applies to congregational <\/strong>as well as to individual relationships. Does not this passage therefore forbid both congregations <\/strong>and individual saints <\/strong>from forming or maintaining an alliance\/fellowship with any person or group (congregation) of persons that would adversely affect one\u2019s loyalty to Christ and his word? If this be the case, it must follow that just as an individual saint can (yea, must) withdraw from any such fellowship, so must a group or congregation of saints do in order to follow Paul\u2019s edict.<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 11:28: <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cBesides those things that are without, there is that which presseth upon me daily, anxiety for all the churches.\u201d The New Testament knows nothing of \u201cdislocated\u201d members\u2014all were members of a local congregation of the Lord\u2019s people. Even Paul, who traveled the empire, had a \u201chome\u201d congregation\u2014Antioch of Syria\u2014to which he returned again and again with the reports of his labors (Acts 11:25\u201330; 13:1\u20133; 14:26\u2013 28; 18:22). We are to have great loyalty for the congregation of which we are members, supporting it and working as part of it, in every way possible as long as it abides in the truth. However, local church loyalty in no way precludes concern for \u201call the churches,\u201d as seen in Paul\u2019s statement. Exclusive <\/strong>loyalty to and concern for a local congregation is an expression of spiritual myopia, provincialism, and isolationism and is selfish to the maximum. If individual saints may\/should have concern for sister congregations, how can it possibly be wrong for an entire congregation to have concern for other congregations? Would not this concern include not only an interest in their progress and growth, but also an interest in their soundness in doctrine or practice?<\/span><\/p>\n Ephesians 5:11: <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAnd have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them.\u201d Of course, this command applies to individual saints in the Ephesian church and their relationship to other individuals in their immediate circumstances. However, as with Romans 16:17\u201318, it is utterly arbitrary to limit the application and implication of this imperative to individuals, as if congregations <\/strong>are somehow exempt from them. Are there those who are willing to affirm that God forbids his individual children to have fellowship with other individuals engrossed in darkness and commands them to reprove such, but that He allows congregations <\/strong>of his people to have fellowship with and forbids them to reprove other congregations <\/strong>who are in the realm of darkness? We are willing to affirm that this passage applies to a single saint or to a congregation of two hundred saints<\/strong>. It is never <\/strong>right for God\u2019s people\u2014in whatever numbers\u2014to have fellowship with evil. Contrariwise, it is ever <\/strong>right for God\u2019s people\u2014in whatever numbers\u2014to reprove evil. The number of people involved has nothing whatsoever to do with the implementation of the command.<\/span><\/p>\n 1 John 4:1: <\/em><\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cBeloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.\u201d John wrote this epistle to Christians \u201cin general\u201d rather than to a specific individual or church. The passage above has to do with preachers and what they preached. The message of the preachers was (and is) to be put on trial so as to determine if it was (is) from God. Obviously, it was not merely the preacher in a local congregation who was to be thus proved by its members. Rather, John warns of many false prophets who have \u201cgone out into the world,\u201d referring to men who might come to them from afar. Hence John has in mind any and every <\/strong>preacher, from whatever congregation, who might come to them or whom they might go to hear. The entire purpose of the proving would be to believe or disbelieve him, to accept or reject him, to extend fellowship to or withhold\/withdraw fellowship from him. This passage proves that a congregation <\/strong>may sit in holy judgment of, and identify and reject as a heretic, one who was not a member of that congregation<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n 2 John 7, 9\u201311: <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh…. Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works.<\/span><\/p>\n Although John addressed his second letter to \u201can elect lady and her children\u201d (v. 1), it is still universally classified as a \u201cgeneral epistle.\u201d Notice that John warned about the many deceivers who were circulating and strictly charged that such were not to be given hospitality or greeting (equivalents of fellowship). To do so would be tantamount to partaking in their evil deeds. Again, this reaches far beyond merely a false teacher who might be a member of a local congregation, as indicated by the universal expressions, \u201cgone forth into the world\u201d (v. 7), \u201cwhosoever\u201d (v. 9), and \u201cany one\u201d (v. 10) in reference to him. It is very likely that John refers to traveling preachers from distant congregations, rather than to members of the congregation where this dear Christian lady lived. \u201cbut this was written to an individual, rather than a congregation,\u201d someone avers. What is the point of such a statement except to imply that while individuals <\/strong>should not entertain and greet (so as to endorse) false teachers (who are not members of the local congregation), the congregation <\/strong>as a whole may do so?<\/span><\/p>\n Revelation 2:5: <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cRemember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent.\u201d The reader is reminded that the son of God is the author of these words in his letter to the church in Ephesus. If she did not repent, the Lord warned that he would withdraw fellowship from her, as implied by the threat to \u201cmove her candlestick.\u201d \u201cbut the fact that the Lord <\/strong>could take this action does not mean that a congregation <\/strong>can,\u201d someone may object. Allright, let us test this objection. Suppose Ephesus did not repent, and the Lord identified her as an apostate church which he could not fellowship. What should the faithful churches of Asia do? Would they please the Lord by continuing to fellowship her or by refusing to withdraw fellowship from her? Would they displease the Lord by following his example and withdrawing fellowship from her? To insist that one congregation cannot identify another congregation as apostate (and thereupon withdraw fellowship from it) is to insist that it is scriptural to dishonor the Lord\u2019s withdrawal and that it is unscriptural to follow the example of the Lord himself. <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Miscellaneous considerations<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Besides the principles drawn from the foregoing passages, there are some additional ones that bear on the question of congregation-to-congregation withdrawal of fellowship. While some of these principles may somewhat overlap some of those already mentioned, we now give more specific attention to them.<\/span><\/p>\n Congregations can recognize and extend fellowship to each other <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n