MARCH 13TH, 1920

MARCH 13TH, 1920

... Brethren generally are in such substantial agreement as to the principles involved in the present exercise that the idea of division on the subject seems to be simply preposterous. As to the essential matters, which might justly be regarded as vital to fellowship, there seems to be, happily, universal concurrence of judgment. That is (1), that all links of association or fellowship with a wicked person should be severed, and (2) that all ecclesiastical pretension should be felt to be utterly unsuitable in the present condition of the church.

But a third question has come in, and become the occasion of diverse judgments running in some cases to the point of serious difference. That is, whether as to our public attitude, and the public statement of that attitude, in relation to a wicked person, we should take church ground and put him away from amongst ourselves, as could be done at Corinth, or whether it is not more suitable and seemly to take 2 Timothy ground and to act together on the basis of individual faithfulness, but, of course, in the light of all assembly truth and principles. It must be one or the other. Whatever terms are used there is really no middle course. Much has been brought before us in ministry as to this for many years past, and it seems to be the Lord’s mind that this question should be now definitely faced.

^[p. 110] The very fact that there is exercise, with different phases of expression, but which in each case maintains with jealous care separation from evil, and the purity of the saints’ associations, and the honour due to the Lord’s Name, is something to be thankful for. It is evidence that the Lord is not suffering us to drop down into formality, but is preserving exercise as to the import of things, and as to the moral state which can alone take them up rightly. There is nothing in the exercise which, in my judgment, should be regarded as raising the question of fellowship. It is an exercise for brethren to take up together, and to seek the Lord about, that He may make clear His mind and confirm it in the judgment of His saints. It is surely not a matter which calls for division.

I go most fully with what has been said; viz. “The church — as set up in responsibility here — has failed, and there is no corporate body now that we can look to. We must recognise this, and our own part, too, as contributing to the failure. Further, it is a principle in the ways of God that when the corporate thing fails the principles that belong to it are maintained in individual faithfulness”.

A principle clearly laid down in 2 Timothy 2 is that of withdrawing or separation from iniquity or vessels to dishonour. It is a principle of very wide — we might say universal — application. If it is true that we cannot now look to any corporate body to maintain divine principles, in individual faithfulness we can still act on this basic principle of withdrawal or separation from what is evil. It is a most valuable divine provision for the last days. The faithful saint can never be forced to accept association with evil; he can always withdraw from it. If two were walking together, and one of them became characteristically a wicked person the other could, and would, withdraw from him. And if 50 or 500 are walking together, each one must walk individually in regard to him on the withdrawal principle. It is only as each one acts on this principle that we can follow righteousness together.

But in dealing with such a person those who walk together act together. And the question arises whether there may not be an element in such collective action additional to that of individual withdrawal. I cannot doubt that when faithful saints thus act there is an additional element, and a very important one. If “two or three” take action, as gathered together to the Lord’s Name, and with the support and sanction of His presence, their action — as to spiritual reality, and in the estimation of faith — has assembly character. The Lord’s presence, and His power and authority, are concerned in the matter. But the support and confidence which the consciousness of this gives are known only to faith and love, and to the holy and priestly exercises of saints in private with God. I think we should instinctively feel that it would be out of place and unbecoming to take or claim any such ground as to our public position here. Every sober and lowly mind would shrink from it as savouring of pretension.

Now it seems to me that if the difference between these two things were recognised, as it ought to be, the difficulties as to present exercises would be greatly diminished. Some seem to fear that the first is in danger of being given up. No one has any thought of giving it up; it is the supreme joy and strength of faith. But what is said or done in public should be in keeping with the public position, which is that of a few feeble individuals seeking to walk together in the truth in the midst of assembly ruin and confessing that ruin. Hence if brethren feel it comely to say that they “withdraw” from a wicked person I cannot regard such action as an evil so great that it ought to be separated from. It is, at any rate, safe ground to take, as based on a clear divine principle of universal application. And it is unpretentious, and consistent with a condition of things when, admittedly, “there is no corporate body that we can look to”. It is acting on a broad divine principle which is clearly available even in the most extreme conditions of weakness, and it surrenders nothing unless it be the claim to act publicly as having church position and the presence and power of our Lord Jesus Christ. But surely all saints would agree that this latter, as I have remarked already, is to be known today as the comfort and support of faith within, rather than taken up as giving a status or authority to be claimed without.

I trust that brethren will be patient, and prayerfully consider the principles involved. If the Lord be waited on and confided in I have no doubt as to the result.

March 13th, 1920.