by

A. J. Gardiner (1884 - c. 1972)

DIVINE PRINCIPLES AND A DAY OF RUIN.

163
IN 1920 a controversy arose as to the way in which evil, when found amongst us, should be dealt with. It involved the careful consideration of 1 Corinthians 5, and 2 Timothy 2:19-22, with a view to discerning the way to maintain uncompromisingly the holiness which ever becomes the house of God in a manner consistent with the humble recognition of the conditions of brokenness that mark the days we are in. The exercise which the controversy aroused resulted in the general recognition that it was unbecoming for the saints in any place who are truly separated to the name of the Lord Jesus to assume, in their public actions, to be the assembly of God in the place, and thus to have competence, as the Corinthians had, to remove a wicked person from amongst them, as it is clear that when the apostle wrote to the Corinthians there was the one assembly in Corinth comprising all true believers in the city, and spoken of in 1 Cor. 5:12, as "within," in contrast to which there were "those outside." Anyone therefore removed from amongst the Corinthians would find himself among "those outside" the whole company of believers in the city, whereas at the present time anyone ceasing to be recognised as identified with a particular company of believers can, and, alas, not infrequently does, associate himself with another company of believers. Such is the state of confusion publicly that marks Christendom, which is described in the second epistle to Timothy as "a great house," in which "there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthen; and some to honour and some to dishonour." In this condition of things, the divine provision is in the instruction which immediately follows, viz., "If therefore one shall have purified himself from these, in separating himself from them, he shall be a vessel to honour, sanctified, serviceable to the Master, prepared

164
for every good work. But youthful lusts flee, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart," 2 Timothy 2:21. In verse 19 we have the immovability of God's foundation, the seal of which is "The Lord knows those that are his; and, Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity." These verses shew that the faithful believer is never compelled to go on with evil. He is authorised, and indeed required, to withdraw from iniquity, and is appealed to to purify himself from vessels to dishonour by separating himself from them. He is then enjoined to pursue righteousness (i.e. what is right in the sight of God), faith, (relying on God and not on what is seen), love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart. By this means a collective position is reached, and can be maintained, in separation from evil, in which the truth of the assembly can be followed up and worked out in all that are available, but if among those walking together on these lines, in the light of the assembly, an evildoer is found, involving the necessity for judging the evil and refusing to go on with it, it was felt that it is more in keeping with the humiliating state of confusion publicly in that which bears the name of Christ to do so by withdrawing from the evildoer than by assuming competence, as the assembly of God, to remove him from amongst ourselves. It has been pointed out that this is supported by the typical teaching of Numbers 15 and 16. In Numbers 15:35, "the whole assembly" is called upon to stone an evildoer, and did so. In Numbers 16:26, following on the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, with two hundred and fifty princes (typifying the great rebellion against the Lord and the Spirit which characterises the Christian profession), the people are called upon to "Depart... from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs."

165
The matter is further amplified in the following three letters by Mr. C. A. Coates, a paper by him called "Righteousness in the Last Days," and an extract from a reading in May, 1918, at Rochester, U.S.A., on 2 Timothy 2:19-26.

March 5th, 1920.

BELOVED BROTHER,—... Your letter was a great comfort to me, as showing that you could so clearly discern the character of what some were doing, and that you had no sympathy with it. Happily the Lord has in much mercy checked the unwarrantable attempts to cause division, and all sober minds are shocked that such attempts should have been made. But we must continue to pray for our dear brethren, for there is much that needs wisdom and grace, and the Head alone can supply it. It is good to realise that the Lord distinctly acts for His own, and defends them from influences that are not helpful. He lets us feel our own weakness, but then He acts, and when He does it is an effective action which cannot be defeated.

I am most thankful to have your prayers; I value them most highly. I am glad to think of you and of all that is an exercise to you and a trial of faith.

With much love in the Lord to dear Mrs. — and yourself.

Yours affectionately in Him, C.A.C.

March 9th, 1920.

MY DEAR BROTHER,—Many thanks for yours. It is very kind of you to write so fully, and I value the opportunity of considering your thoughts on the subject which is a matter of exercise at present.

It is in the desire to maintain the full force and scope of 1 Corinthians 5:13 as the commandment of the Lord that I recognise His will to be that a wicked person should be excluded from the privileges and fellowship of the assembly, and from the company

166
of all who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I think this is the scope of the Scripture in a just and sober interpretation of it, taken in its divine setting in an epistle addressed as 1 Corinthians 1:2. I hold that it is obligatory not only on all saints, but on all who call upon that holy name, even though it be in profession only. That, in its full and proper scope, it is not now obeyed is obvious, and is the evidence of departure and ruin, which is humbling to us all as having our part in it.

I am unable to see that the acceptance of the above interpretation involves that "we must necessarily judge as evil all the various judgments of the past and consequently our own present position." It seems to me that if brethren had now come to the conclusion that it was wrong to exclude a wicked person from their fellowship there would be force in your argument! But the matter is on quite a different footing from this. Brethren are, thank God, as much set to exclude evil from their associations as ever. They regard those "various judgments" as morally right, and as come to in the fear of God, with true and upright desire to maintain what was due to the Lord, and what was suitable to the abode of God's holiness. But there have been many things in the practice of brethren, and terms frequently used in years past, which have quietly dropped out through exercise in the presence of increased light. For many years, and particularly since we were so much helped by F.E.R.'s ministry, brethren generally have been exercised to avoid taking any ground, or using any terms, that might seem to involve pretension in the scene and circumstances of the church's ruin. But we do not "judge as evil" what was done uprightly, and for the honour of the Lord's name, and which was, as to its substance, approved of Him, though we might not feel free to do things just in the same way now. We do not "judge as evil" the measure of

167
light and truth we had forty years ago, though we were happy to say and do many things then which we should not say or do now. To be thankful for increased light does not involve that we "judge as evil" our former measure of spiritual intelligence and growth. The "dilemma" you speak of does not present itself to my mind as being such at all.

I would suggest that the "ground" on which any action may be taken is distinguishable from the "object" or "motive." It is true that all links with an evil-doer should be severed on the "ground" that he is unfit for any Christian fellowship. But the "object" in view would be, first, to maintain conditions suitable to the Lord, and in accord with His holy name, and in keeping with the character of God's house. And, secondly, in the spirit of grace and love, that the offender might be exercised, convicted, and fully restored. The "motive" in all that was done would be the obedience of faith working through love...

My power is very small, but I would certainly earnestly desire to use it to the utmost to prevent disintegration, and to build saints up in Christ, so that as formed in the divine nature they may be comforted and knit together in love. May we have wisdom to discern the movements which really tend to divide and scatter, and spiritual power to resist them as strong in the Lord and in the might of His strength. And in every way may we be found "seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed"!

I have jotted down these few thoughts in reference to your remarks. I submit them freely to your consideration and criticism, and shall be glad to be corrected where I am wrong.

With very much love in the Lord Jesus,

Yours very affectionately in Him, C.A.C.

168
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.

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

169
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 fifty or five hundred 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

170
"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

171
remarked already, is to be known to-day 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.

C.A.C.

*     *     * 

Righteousness in the Last Days

Table of Contents