FELLOWSHIP: A RESPONSE
Harold Hazelip

“He drew a circle and shut me out,

Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout;

But Love and I had the wit to win

We drew a circle and took him in.”

Edwin B. Hayden, editor of the Christian Standard, tells of having used these words to encourage unity, and adds, “Then in response to what seemed excessively latitudinarian implications in the Edwin Markham verse, I added a quatrain of my own composing”:

“There are circles large and circles small

To shut men out or include them all.

The making of circles goes on and on;

But what of the circle that God has drawn?” ¹

I have no quarrel with the breadth of spirit of Brother Ketcherside’s paper. Certain negative responses which I shall make should not be interpreted either as lacking in appreciation for his attempts to bring “separated brethren” into dialogue with each other again, or as a defense of divisiveness. However, the Roman Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner, has spoken of a sense of “historical dizziness” which has emerged from intensive contact between differing religious groups. I believe we must endeavor to gain and keep our balance in the face of revolutionary movements which range from neopentecostalism to the “death of God,” and which call for radical re-examination of convictions at every point.

Brother Ketcherside’s paper seems to me to fall into four basic parts: an introductory testimonial; at attempt to define and de-limit fellowship, a delineation of three grounds for disruption of fellowship; and practical application of his principles as they relate to persons in this assembly. I shall comment briefly upon each of these four divisions and then offer a concluding statement.

THE INTRODUCTORY TESTIMONIAL

His introduction moves directly to a central problem related to our dividedness: Who is a “sectarian?” I question whether we can seriously define “sectarian” as “one who has something we oppose.” We must seek a Biblical definition for this word. There is no question that we have experienced a great deal of “majoring on minors.”

Is the proper corrective to this a “minoring on majors?” Shall we simply slide from an older concern about trivialities to a stance of no concern about essentials? Obviously, the real question is: What are the essentials? I believe any serious attempt to move brethren away from a high propensity for division over minutiae must grapple more seriously than his paper does with the criteria for constructing a list of essentials. I could not help wondering how he avoids being “sectarian” simply because his list of essentials differs from the list of other brethren.

Our application and counter-application to one another of New Testament passages on unity and heresy indicates that we have a basic problem in deciding what is heresy. Kittel makes a familiar distinction between hairesis, which affects the doctrinal foundation of the church and may even give rise to a new society alongside it, and schisma, which is a split within the community caused by personally motivated disputes. But the difficulty of deciding what is, in fact, heretical, is far too complex to dismiss lightly.

DEFINING FELLOWSHIP

When Humpty Dumpty said, “There’s glory for you” and explained to a mystified Alice that he really meant “There’s a nice knock-down argument for you,” he went on to say, somewhat scornfully, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” What does koinonia really mean? Is it identical with agape? Or even with adelphotes (brotherhood)? Is it altogether a relationship, or state, or does it include “participation?” Brother Ketcherside defines it as “the sharing of a common life,” and as a “state or condition created by God”.

Professor Hauck (Kittel, Theological Wordbook of the New Testament) suggests three basic meanings for the koinonia words in the New Testament: “To share with someone in something,” “to give someone a share in something,” and “fellowship” as an abstract term which describes the “brotherly concord as established and expressed in the life of the community.” Within the “to share with someone in something” meaning, he suggests seven expressions of fellowship in the New Testament: (1) Partnership in work or sharing in a nature (sometimes not a religious content —Lk. 5:10; Heb. 2:14); (2) In Paul — participation in Christ (1 Cor. 1:9), the Supper (1 Cor. 10:17), participation in the phases of the life of Christ (e. g. suffering, Ph. 3:10), partaking of the Spirit (2 Cor. 13:13), and having a share with Christians (2 Cor. 8:23); (3) In John — the living bond in which the Christian stands (with God, 1 John 1:3, 5; with Christians, 1 John 1:3, 7).

I am especially perplexed, in view of the richness of the word, by Brother Ketcherside’s apparent implication that fellowship is a state or a somewhat static relationship rather than a vibrant joint-participation in activity as well as in a relationship.

And, how is fellowship created? I believe the one thing we need least at this point in our history is a new cliche. This “one fact — one act” creedal basis has an “intellectual assent plus legalistic response equals technical fellowship” ring which I believe is unbiblical. The problems it introduces range far beyond cups, classes, colleges, and accordions. Presumably, Eastern Orthodox believers, Seventh Day Adventists, and Mormons pass the “Lordship-Immersion” exam also.

The assertion that “every saved person on earth is in that body and in the fellowship,” ignores the dynamic of this relationship. Man’s response to Christ is (1) acceptance of Christ as Savior, and (2) submission to Christ as Lord. Trust is a continuing response which is at the heart of this relationship. Fellowship for a “non-truster” is impossible — with either God or brethren. That he “once believed” that Jesus was Christ is not enough to maintain that relationship. Baptism marks the point at which the relationship began, but it does not assure that this relationship is presently operative.

Is fellowship to be equated with endorsement? There are usages of koinonia (e. g. Gal. 2:9) which do suggest endorsement (in this case, of a missionary strategy). Brother Ketcherside’s scriptural examples of men who were not in complete agreement but who were in fellowship with each other are well-taken, albeit carefully chosen (e. g., they do not include 2 Tim. 2:1 7; “And their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus “) His examples, all taken from one viewpoint, overlook the fact that fellowship must sometimes cease. It is possible to believe things which cause one to act in ways which prevent other Christians from “sharing a common life” with him. Our difference at this point would appear to be not so much over the need to disassociate ourselves from one who is recognized as a brother, as over which beliefs and practices make such disassociation necessary.

GROUNDS FOR DISRUPTION

Three grounds for “delivery of one unto Satan,” are given: moral turpitude, doctrinal aberration, and factionalism. These are traced to one basic root: renunciation of Jesus as Lord. These grounds are not in controversy; they might have been produced, for example, from a recent editorial page of the Firm Foundation (February 8, 1972). Our differences are not on principle but on how we apply principle. Is fellowship ever terminated with anyone without his peers believing he has been guilty of one of “these three destructive tendencies?”

Our problem obviously is that one may renounce the Lordship of Jesus and deny that he has done it, or fail to realize that he has done it, or be sincerely deluded into thinking he hasn’t done it. Some call Jesus “Lord” without realizing that, in fact, they have never submitted to His will as Lord. This may be illustrated from the “moral turpitude” ground. The “new moralists” have reminded us that there is at least as much relativity involved in making moral decisions today as in reaching doctrinal decisions.

Two statements in this section of Brother Ketcherside’s paper are especially interesting. One of these suggests a hierarchy of truths in the Christian faith: “All truths are equally true but not all truths are equally important.” Vatican II’s bishops advised Roman Catholic theologians who engage in ecumenical discussions, “When comparing doctrines, they should remember that in Catholic teaching there exists an order or “hierarchy” of truths, since they vary in their relationship to the foundation of the Christian faith.”² This may prove a helpful suggestion but we appear to face the same problem again: Which truths are unimportant? The Vatican decree indicates the central areas by calling on all Christians to “profess their faith in God, one and three, in the Incarnate Son of God, our Redeemer, and Lord,” and in our “common hope.” The difficulty to which I am alluding is suggested by brother Ketcherside’s choice of words in the following sentence: “If one is right about Jesus he can be wrong about a lot of things and still be saved. If he is wrong about Jesus, he can be right about every thing else and still be lost.” May we say, “If one is right about Jesus he can be wrong about everything else and still be saved?” Who decides which things are included in the “lot of things” we are allowed to be wrong about?

Another far-reaching statement in the same section is: “No honest opinion arrived at from personal study of the sacred volume, and held in good conscience, can ever be made a test of fellowship.” I would suppose, for example, that Marcion, of the second century Roman church, would fit into this category, with his denial of the Old Testament and his separation of the God of the Old Testament from the God of the New Testament — but it hardly seems possible that someone with his ideas could be allowed free rein within a congregation. Or, on the contemporary scene, the doctrinal basis of the World Council of Churches would appear to be acceptable by this standard. The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God the Saviour according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfill together their common calling to the glory of the one God, the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit.”³ This “one fact” confession of Lordship could hardly be loftier. Is the “one act,” immersion, the sole factor dividing Christendom today?

HIS PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

The “practical applications” section of Brother Ketcherside’s paper covers music, communion containers, tongue-speaking, cooperation, etc., with the suggestion that they all “fit together” and none of them affects fellowship. I am afraid that nothing is gained by concluding simply that our differences don’t make any difference. Many of them probably don’t. But our real task is not to dismiss heresy as trivial (assuming that heresy is possible at some point other than the deity of Christ) but rather to define what is and what is not, in fact, heretical. Where and what is tradition and Opinion, and where and what is Christian doctrine? This is the question and I believe the answer is much more difficult than Brother Ketcherside makes it.

Koinonia rests upon faith and faith rests upon the Word. Deviation from the Word, though it may seem nonessential, will ultimately strike at the heart of the gospel. This prompted Paul’s warning, “. . . and their talk will eat its way like gangrene,” (2 Tim. 2:17), and his quotation of Menander, “Bad company ruins good morals.” (1 Cor. 15:33)

It is true that we cannot always tell with unerring certainty who is a Christian: “The Lord knows those who are his.” (2 Tim. 2:19) But it is also true that we can admit that one has the right foundation and not approve his manner of building. (1 Cor. 3:11-15) The decision as to when to give the “right-hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9), is not always simple. The consequences of a course of action may not be entirely predictable. The practice of open membership, for example, which is the acceptance of those into fellowship who have not been immersed into Christ, was introduced by the Disciples in many places, and the significance of baptism to them has apparently been destroyed. (Cf. Mission Messenger, September 1959, p. 5)

CONCLUSION

We can be grateful for conscience stirrings in the area of broken fellowship. We may not often have experienced New Testament fellowship, and consequently, do not miss it and are not too concerned to restore it. Just as it is unnatural for a normal child to insist upon playing alone, just as mountain climbers who scale dangerous heights are tied to each other for mutual support, so Christians are made for fellowship with others. Aristotle defined friendship as “one soul dwelling in two bodies.” Christian fellowship brings a deeper bond than friendship. Bunyan has a few solitary characters on the highway — Honest, Valiant, Steadfast — but he soon brings them up with the main band. It was one of the great days in Christian’s pilgrimage when he overtook Faithful. Their souls were immediately at one: “And I saw in my dreams that they went very lovingly together, and has sweet discourse of all things that had happened to them in their pilgrimage.” Such fellowship is worthy of better efforts than we have given it.

However, if this fellowship is to be genuine and deep, it must not be based, as is the ecumenical movement, simply upon faith “experienced”; it must be based upon faith which is “reflective,” that is, faith which takes seriously the ground upon which faith and fellowship are based. Animosities’ can and should be reduced immediately and some areas of cooperation between brethren who are conscientiously separated from one another may be possible. But the kind of joint participation suggested by the “right hand of fellowship” of Galatians 2:9 will not be achieved by any easy answer. This is true because we are not dealing with the merger of the New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroads; we are seeking a spiritual union and communion between conscientious brethren who have too long been separated from one another by greater and lesser issues — all of which are “greater” to the man who holds them. —1000 Cherry Road, Memphis, Tn. 38117