Reception, again

It seems like the issue of reception keeps coming up. So I thought I'd write down some notes about it. I've already laid out what I think about reception ("Thoughts on reception"), but I'm not sure I did a good job of referring to Scripture. So I'd like to establish in just a few paragraphs what Scripture has to say about reception. Yeah, like that's possible...

The first thing we need to establish is that not everyone is supposed to be at the Lord's Table. Scripture specifically says we're to exclude some: 1 Corinthians 5 discusses putting believers out of fellowship who deliberately and unrepentantly persist in sin. What does it say we should do in this case?

• to have nothing to do with such a person (v. 11)
• not to eat with such a person (v. 11)
• to remove such a person from among ourselves (v. 13)

If we're supposed to remove the person, if we're not to mix with the person, if we're not to eat with the person, then that person sure isn't supposed to be at the Lord's Table. If we allow that person to the Table, then we've disobeyed these three commands.

This is only about removing someone from fellowship who is living in known sin. So no, these verse don't apply to someone who just walks in off the street. But it does establish the general principle that we aren't supposed to have everyone at the Table. There is at least one complete class of people we're specifically told to exclude. Not to exclude such people is sin.

So we've established the principle that the Lord's Table isn't for everyone.

The next question is, why shouldn't we allow this person to the Table? The question is answered easily in 1 Corinthians 5:6–8: "a little leaven leavens the whole lump". What does that mean? It means that sin spreads. It's possible for an entire gathering of the Lord's people to become defiled by the sin of one person.

This isn't an isolated statement in Scripture. The Scriptures mention it explicitly in other places:

• 1 Timothy 5:22 commands not to "partake in others' sins"
• 2 John 10 & 11 say that you "partake in [a false teacher's] wicked works" just by allowing him into the house, or greeting him

So we have a principle given three times in Scripture, that it's possible to become a participant in someone else's sins. How? 1 Corinthians 5 contemplates social interaction, and includes church activities. The assembly is supposed to "remove" that person. 1 Timothy 5 connects participating in someone else's sins just by "laying hands" on him. That is not, I take it, a physical touch, but a symbolic gesture, like a hand shake. 2 John says it's possible to become a participant in an evil teacher's "wicked works" by allowing him to come into your house, or even by greeting him. There's a reason I never let representatives of the Watchtower Society into my house when they knock on the door. No thanks, I'm not interested in getting in on their blasphemies.

But can we really apply a principle like that to the assembly? Isn't it talking about individual social interactions? That's not really a reasonable interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5. But if we want to argue about it, we have more of God's thoughts on fellowship in Revelation 2 & 3. In the message to the assembly in Pergamos, the Lord Jesus says He has two things against them:

1. they have those who hold the doctrine of Balaam (Revelation 2:14)
2. they have those who hold the doctrines of the Nicolaitanes (Revelation 2:15)

Let's be perfectly clear here: the Lord makes exactly two accusations against the assembly in Pergamos, and they're both that the assembly has allowed people in who hold to false doctrines. And then He warns them to repent (Revelation 2:16). So the teaching of Revelation 2 is that there is judgment coming on this assembly because of their fellowship with certain people.

We could go on. We could discuss Jude. We could talk about Romans 16. But in the end, it's an indisputable fact that the Lord takes our associations very seriously. The Scripture explicitly warns against becoming a partaker in someone else's sins, and Christ judges the assembly specifically in terms of the people they allow in fellowship.

But there's more. The Lord's Supper is not an individual thing. What does the Scripture say? "[W]e, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf" (1 Corinthians 10:17). No, it doesn't mean we become one Body by eating the one loaf. The context makes that clear. What it means is that we announce our "One Body"-ness by eating that one loaf. Why do many Christians refer to the Lord's Supper as "Communion"? Because that's what 1 Corinthians 10 calls it. By eating the Lord's Supper together, we are demonstrating our communion.

Now we see why the Lord takes it so seriously to have an unrepentant fornicator in the assembly: the entire assembly is expressing unity with that man whenever they sit at the Lord's Supper together.

So let's talk about unbelievers for a moment. Do we believe they are part of the One Body? Of course not! It's only by baptism of the Holy Spirit we become part of the One Body (1 Corinthians 12:13). So then we're lying if we announce "One Body"-ness with an unbeliever, aren't we?

So we have the general principle that it's possible to become a partaker in someone else's sins. And we have some specific examples of how that works: things like inviting a false teacher into the house, or greeting him. And we have the explicit command that the assembly is to put unrepentant sinners out of fellowship: we're to have nothing to do with them, and we're specifically told not to eat with them. And we have the judgment of the Lord Jesus, that allowing people with false doctrine to be part of the assembly is a serious sin. So we can say with complete certainty that there are several reasons to exclude someone from the Lord's Supper. And in fact, Scripture makes it clear that if we don't exclude them, we come under the Lord's judgment (Revelation 2:14–16).

But what about 1 Corinthians 11? People have pointed out 1 Corinthians 11:28, "a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (NASB). People have taken that to mean that it's up to the individual to decide whether he ought to take part in the Lord's Supper. I suppose the verse might be taken that way, but I don't think it fits the context very well. Why would I say that? Because just six chapters earlier, the Scripture specifically commands we're not to eat with unrepentant sinners. Does the Lord's Supper count as eating? Of course it does! And 1 Corinthians 10 makes the point that in eating the Lord's Supper, we're expressing communion with each other. So 1 Corinthians 5 explicitly forbids eating with someone, can we then understand 1 Corinthians 11 to mean that it's up to them whether they partake of the Lord's Supper?

1 Corinthians 11 isn't saying that anyone who comes along is responsible to decide for themselves whether they ought to eat and drink: that would mean that the entire discussion in 1 Corinthians 5 is meaningless. It means that 1 Corinthians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11 together read something like this, "Have nothing to do with that person, don't even eat with them. But really, leave it up to them to decide whether they eat with you..." When we put it that way, it sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

1 Corinthians 11 is addressing the people who are in the assembly. This is a known group of people, and we know that by v. 23. They were ones to whom Paul had already given the truth of the Lord's Supper. He knew them, they weren't strangers. And he says to them that they ought to be judging themselves, because it's by self-judgment that we escape God's judgment.

The concept of an "open table" doesn't stand up to Scripture. But there's another question: what is our test of fellowship? If not everyone's allowed to the Table, then who should be allowed?

I've pointed out before that the test of fellowship isn't loyalty to the group: the test is loyalty to Christ. I'm not by any means condoning a sectarian membership. But I am saying the uniform testimony of Scripture is that God holds the assembly responsible for who's eating the Lord's Supper. And Scripture plainly states that this relationship can be defiling to an assembly.

As a final note: I wrote several years ago about reception ("Thoughts on reception"), but I didn't know then that J. N. Darby wrote something very much along the same lines. It wasn't for quite some time I found it, but Darby's paper "Principles of Gathering" is excellent. It's on STEM Publishing, and it's worth a read.

Clarification

Well, there are already some things being said to me that indicate people haven't been listening. So let's run through this one more time.

I am not saying "brethren" teach what is wrong. I am saying they have developed a system that is collapsing under its own weight. I am in complete agreement with "exclusive brethren" as far as things like church order and inter-assembly relationships. That is, I think what they say about those topics is correct. If they would only do what they say, I would have no problems with them. If they really would allow the Holy Spirit to lead in the meetings, if they really did act in unity instead of descending into schism at every crisis, then I'd be onboard.

I'm not looking for "open reception." I completely buy the whole "guarded fellowship" idea. I'm not in any way suggesting we ought to allow strangers to break bread, nor am I advocating a freelance model of fellowship wherein people just sort of drift from assembly to assembly as they feel inclined that day. What I am saying is, our tests of fellowship are all wrong: we receive based solely on whether someone's a member of the group.

I'm not saying we ought to have clergy, elders, or anything of the sort. I'm saying we're hypocrites when we condemn others for their "pastor" then have a roster of men whose word cannot be questioned. I'm saying that when a man or group of men can effectively overturn an assembly decision, we have clergy in fact, if not in name.

I'm not saying we are wrong to have books, commentaries, and various publications. I am saying that we are in fact committing idolatry when we consider them to be the authority, rather than Scripture.

I'm not saying we ought to jettison things like church order, I'm not even saying things like headcoverings or "open ministry" are unimportant. I am saying that getting externals right is not an excuse to be backbiting, self-righteous, or complacent. The scripture warns very strongly about "having a form of godliness" and denying it's power.

My desire for "occasional fellowship" is not because I intend to visit a whole slew of other assemblies and break bread there. It's based on the conviction that there is no membership other than that in the Body of Christ, and (one-line disclaimers in assembly phone lists notwithstanding) what we practice is sectarian membership.

I'm not saying the assembly where I have been fellowshipping is in sin. I'm saying that I have been compromising on certain things in order to get others. For example, I've been compromising on the issue of reception in order to be in an assembly where the meetings are largely unscheduled so the the Holy Spirit can lead. But I've started to realize that I've made compromises on "intangibles" for "tangibles." That is, I've compromised on issues like pride and complacency so I can see a certain level of correct church order. I no longer feel free to make those compromises. I am not condemning anyone, but I no longer feel free to continue on this course.

That probably won't clear things up to any significant degree, but I felt it worthwhile to lay it all out like that.

Freely give

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
-- 1 Corinthians 12:3 (NASB)

A discussion on a message board has gotten me thinking. And the more I think, the more I see something I ought to have figured out earlier.

When I was growing up, my parents were constantly having Bible studies in our home. Sometimes it was Thursday night, but typically it was Tuesdays. They'd start at (I think) 7:30 PM, and go until quite late (which was probably 10:00 or thereabouts). That meant we kids were just getting ready for bed as the people were arriving. We'd say "goodnight" to everyone, then go off to bed.

My bedroom was on the other side of a wall from the "rec room" in our house. Sometimes the Bible Studies were in the living room, but more often they were in the rec room. That was probably because the woodstove that heated our house was in the rec room: it was the warm, comfortable room. I was an insomniac then as now, so I would lay awake until after everyone left, listening to the Bible Studies. I had to be quiet and not disturb the people out there; but there was a lot for a young boy to learn by eavesdropping on a Bible Study every Tuesday night.

One of the features of the Tuesday Night Bible Study was, it was totally oblivious to sectarian or denominational boundaries. It was full of Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Pentacostals, Foursquares, and even "brethren". My parents let anyone in. My parents, you see, believed in One Body (1 Corinthians 12:13).

As I think back over my personal experience, there is a common thread I can't help but notice: when there is a free giving of what we have to other Christians because they are other Christians, with no attention to whether they are with our group or not (whatever "our group" might be); there are inevitable positive outcomes. And I've seen it many times: the more open-handed we are with all members of the Body, the more the Lord gives us to pass on to them.

If you spend any time at all in any but the most liberal of "brethren" groups, you hear loud wailings, bemoaning the fact that we are in unmistakable decline: assemblies are closing, whole generations are leaving to go to some mainline church or another, parking lots are empty. These are all accurate observations, but I can't help but wonder whether we are so sparse precisely because we have been self-centered. Perhaps people are leaving because we've been worried about keeping them. It might sound corny, but I am more and more convinced that the key to building up an assembly is precisely offering whatever we have to offer (I'm thinking primarily spiritually here, but I'm sure there is a physical application too) freely to any in the Body who need it, regardless of whether they intend to "join us" or not.

Notice right now I am limiting this generosity to members of the One Body. I am not thereby saying we ought not to be generous to lost sinners. But there is a very real difference between those inside and those outside. General benevolence is a good thing: but there is a much more pressing need for Christians to help one another. While we ought to do good for all men, there is the "especially those of the household of faith" (Galatians 6:10).

But I want to also caution about giving to get. Regardless of what televangelists say, you can't manipulate God. The key is not to offer a "loss leader" that lures people in. The key is to understand that the One Body transcends any sectarian or denominational ideas we might have. I am responsible for any child of God He has put in my acquaintance. If a child of God has a need, then I am to do what I can to help. If that child of God attends a Baptist church (shudder), that is not to influence my willingness to help. It might affect how I help, but it is not to affect whether I do so. If I can encourage and help a Christian who is walking with the Lord---regardless of what sort of Church she attends---then I have done work for the Lord.

We need to learn to see ourselves as part of One Body. Gifts are given in the Body (Ephesians 4:11--12), not in a gathering or a denomination. To the extent that God has given us something, we need to share it in the Body, not only in our little group. We need to develop this sense of washing each other's feet; and we need to expand it to the whole household of faith. I need to learn to be genuinely concerned how other Christians are doing: how they are growing, how they are walking. Yes, physical needs are part of it, but there needs to be a concern for the spiritual too. We need to learn to be genuinely caring for one another. And we need to learn it in the context of the One Body.


Now to get a little sectarian on you... the "early brethren" were successful, I think, precisely because of this attitude. It is true that we can't be "in fellowship" with everything out there labeled "Christian." There is heresy, blasphemy, and immorality all over; much of it is marketed inside the Church. We ought certainly to turn away from such things. But we ought to see how far we can go to help other Christians, rather than how far we can get away from them. We ought to be genuinely sorrowful when we realize there is a limit to how far we can fellowship with another Christian, rather than smug. Darby, Grant, Kelly; all these guys had precisely this attitude. They weren't forming a party, they were expressing the One Body.

One point of concern with me is the constant refrain I hear in ministry from "open brethren", a repeated call for formalizing the meetings, for having a hard and fast list of "who's in fellowship". Guys, we already tried that, it's called "denominationalism". It hasn't worked terribly well for anyone else, although it seems te be a default state towards which all Christians tend. It fundamentally denies "One Body," and certainly casts aspersion on everything you claim to believe.


I can't help but think that our attitude of hoarding is a large reason why the Lord has seen fit to ensure we have so little.

Thoughts on reception

Reception has been historically a difficult topic in so-called "assembly" circles. There are two general schools of thought on the issue of reception. While there are certainly degrees within each position, the two general positions are "closed" and "open" with regard to reception. In general terms, "open" reception is the idea that anyone claiming to be Christian should be welcome to participate in assembly meetings (usually the breaking of bread, although that's by no means the only meeting that's implied); while the "closed" position is that participation is reserved for certain specific people.

Interestingly, these two positions are by no means exclusively "brethren". Not long ago I read the blog of an [apparently lesbian] Episcopal (Anglican) rector boasting about her church's "open table". So the terminology is by no means a "brethrenism". Further, the infamous "closed table" position is not just a "brethren" thing either: Baptists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics; all sorts of denominations and churches require membership before allowing someone to "take communion".

So a discussion of reception in so-called "assembly circles" is really just a discussion of a sub-topic in the greater realm of modern Christendom. This isn't to be taken as a statement that all the various opinions out there are equally valid or anything: just that we're not the only ones who have this argument.

Typically, the argument against a "closed" policy goes like this: it is most unrighteous to reject a known godly believer simply because they aren't a member of our group. Limiting participation to just those in the group is setting up a de facto membership list. Rather than receiving people as those whom Christ has received, we are receiving them as members of our sect.

The argument against an "open" reception policy typically sounds something like this: receiving someone who is completely unknown to the group, based solely on the statement "I'm a Christian" is by no means described in Scripture. There is such a thing as being a partaker in other men's sins, and this is one way to do it. Anyone---a member of a cult, a false teacher, someone who is blatantly immoral---can make a glib profession at the threshold and be allowed in.

I've mulled this one over for the past 18 years or so, and have finally arrived at some conclusions that might not be popular with people holding either position. My personal conviction is, the only way to maintain a Biblical caution about fellowship on the one hand and sectarianism on the other; is to maintain "closed reception" and allow "occasional fellowship".

So to me, reception would look something like this: if a stranger were to appear at the door on a Sunday morning and want to remember the Lord with us, the answer should be "No". Not because there's anything wrong with him or her, but because they are unknown. On the other hand, if a stranger were to appear with a letter signed by someone who is known, the answer is certainly "Yes". So far, that is in line with everyone who holds to a "closed" reception.

But we can also consider the case where someone who is unknown comes without a letter. There may be several valid reasons for this: in my own experience, I often fail to plan adequately for a trip, and suddenly realize I haven't gotten a letter yet, and it's the day before I leave. What to do then? I would suggest the common-sense approach would be to call ahead, and explain the situation to both the assembly where I live and the one where I plan to be. That way, there can be communication between them about me before Sunday morning. Thus, there would be someone there waiting for me, who can vouch for me to the brethren at my destination.

Now, this scenario raises an interesting question: is the recommendation of someone in the assembly sufficient to receive someone? Obviously the answer is "yes": the Biblical precedent is the Jerusalem assembly's receiving Paul on Barnabas' word.

The next logical question would be, what of the person is known to the assembly already? For example, should a visiting preacher be expected to bring a letter? For the purposes of reception, I would say "no". Similarly, if there is someone visiting an assembly where they are known, the letter is really unnecessary. By the same token, if an assembly were to withdraw from someone for some moral or doctrinal reason, I would expect them to inform other assemblies where the person is known, precisely so he or she wouldn't be received based on personal acquaintance.

So in the case where someone is "in fellowship"---i.e. fellowshipping with another known assembly---I can't think of a reason not to receive them, with or without a letter, as long as we can be certain they really are who they claim. A phone call, email, personal acquaintance, or letter is enough for me to receive them gladly.

To my mind, that summarizes the scenarios involving someone "in fellowship". But what about someone who isn't "with us"? This is where I diverge from the brethren in the assembly where I fellowship. I have come to the conclusion that if we refuse to receive someone solely on the ground that they aren't "in fellowship", we are a sect. Or, to put it another way: as soon as we make membership in something besides the Body of Christ mandatory for fellowship, then we have created a sect. So, I have concluded that we must be "open" to receive any Christian walking with the Lord, regardless of whether he or she is "with us".

Now, before we jump to conclusions, let's add a caveat: a Christian walking in known evil is not to be received, whether he or she is "in fellowship" or not. This is a sword that cuts both ways: not only does it mean we are not to receive people from "out there" that are walking in known sin; it also means that being "in fellowship" doesn't remove the responsibility to walk uprightly. Sadly, I have seen a lot of concern on the part of brethren with the moral standing of people "out there", but very little with the people "in here". And to clarify, there might be a scenario where someone's other association might be problematic. But I cannot see Scripturally that there is ever any excuse to demand exclusive fellowship with someone.

So, for example, if someone in the meeting were to bring some friend or relative to the meetings, and were willing to vouch for him or her, that he or she is a believer; then there would be no sin in receiving that person, regardless of whether that person were planning to go back to their "other church" again the next week. We are not called to demand exclusive loyalty of anyone, except loyalty to Christ.

The principles of reception, in my mind, are summed up like this:

1. we are not to lay hands suddenly on anyone: we only receive those we know, or who are recommended by people we know and trust
2. we receive someone as a member of the Body of Christ, not as a member of our sect
3. if we are confident that someone is a member of the Body of Christ, and that they are not walking in known evil, then we have no choice but to receive them.

There is a final note I ought to make: some of the brethren have taught in assemblies that 2 Tim. 2:22 applies here: "Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love {and} peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart." (NASB). According to these brethren, pure heart means "undivided heart", so that no one has a pure heart who might try and fellowship in two assemblies without leaving one. Or to put it another way, we've been called to walk with those who fellowship exclusively "with us", not with those who might drop in to visit.

This is wrong on many levels:

1. I can find no evidence that "pure" means "undivided" in any translation, Greek dictionary, or Greek lexicon. In other words, the English word "pure" might mean "undiluted" in some sense, but that's equivocation: the Greek term here is speaking about moral purity.
2. This reduces to an absurd position: if "pure" means undivided, then those who have undivided loyalty to their churches (say, for example, a devout Roman Catholic) are "of a pure heart", although it is impossible to fellowship with them: by definition, they will only fellowship with other Roman Catholics.
3. This makes exclusive loyalty, rather than moral purity, the test of fellowship.
   

To deny "occasional fellowship" to those true believers walking uprightly with the Lord is nothing more than the sectarianism we condemn in others.