Untitled article by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Aug 13, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 31.

The Church. No. 16.

By Editor

THE reader will understand that, in speaking of baptism as an initiatory rite, we do not mean that it is the object of baptism. This is spoken only in reference to its place in the gospel work—to its relation to other duties and ordinances.

When we speak of receiving a person into the church, all will understand that we speak of a local or individual church, as it is not possible to take a vote of the church at large in such cases. The responsibilities of church membership, therefore, must be considered principally in a person's relation to that individual church of which he is a member. A man may be a Christian without belonging to any church, provided he has had no opportunity to become a member of any church; but that does not entitle him to church privileges, nor does it render him subject to church discipline. We trust it has been shown to the satisfaction of every one that the church is of the Lord's arrangement; that it is an organized body; and that the duty of discipline is imperatively laid upon it. But the duty of organization and discipline belongs of necessity to local bodies.

This being so, it follows that the privileges of church membership are conferred only within the bounds of that church of which a person is received as a member. The vote of any one church to receive a person as a member, does not constitute that person a member of any other church. This is recognized by all, and the proof of such recognition is found in the fact that such person cannot remove or transfer his membership to another church without a vote of dismissal from his own church, and a vote of acceptance by that other church. And again it follows of necessity that a member of any one church cannot claim the right of communion with any other church. The privilege may be conferred as a matter of Christian courtesy, and it may be quite proper under certain circumstances to confer it; but it ought to be carefully guarded, as it is liable to great abuse. The following came under our notice:

Brother A was a member of the church of B, but he was frequently more or less at variance with somebody in his church. This was of such continuance that a state of distrust between him and his brethren became almost chronic. But a strong sympathy sprung up between him and some of the members of the church of C, and he made it in his way to be with the church of C on quarterly meeting occasions, thus absenting himself from the communion of his own church and partaking with the church of C. And this occurred not a few times.

This proceeding was all disorderly. It was disorderly for Brother A to absent himself from the communion of that church of which alone he was a member. It was disorderly for the church of C to admit him to its communion, time after time, when it could but know that he intentionally absented himself from his own church. And it was neglect of duty on the part of the church of B to suffer such a state of things to continue without calling him to account. It may be said that courtesy to Brother A required the church of C to extend this privilege to him when he was present. But we say that courtesy to the church of B would have required the church of C to inquire into the reason of such a course on the part of this member. If courtesy is demanded, it should be extended toward the side of unquestionable right, and not toward the side which is questionable in its every feature.

And this shows the abuse which is liable to attend a general invitation to members of other churches, even of "the same faith and order," to partake of the communion. It will often occur, under such invitations, that members of other churches will be present, whose standing may well be questioned; and sometimes those whose standing is questioned at their own homes. But it is generally the case that those are the very ones who consider their standing first rate, and think that they have undisputed right to church privileges wherever they are, and the church giving the invitation cannot know their actual standing; cannot know that they are doing injustice to the church whose members they are accepting without sufficient knowledge of their cases.

But some kind-hearted and well-meaning brother may ask: If there would possibly be unpleasant feelings, were the member to partake of the Lord's Supper with his own church, would it not be better that he should partake where such unpleasant feelings would not exist? By no means. Quarterly meetings—occasions of the ordinances—ought to be very profitable seasons to every church. On such occasions, if unpleasant feelings exist, they should be healed, and not covered by dodging. And how can the church, which confers the privilege under such circumstances, know but that if the transient member had been in his place in his own church, ill-feelings might have been removed and wrongs made right? How can it know that it has not been instrumental in confirming and strengthening wrongs in a sister church? There is as great obligation to cultivate and maintain friendly and brotherly relations between the churches, as between the individual members of the churches.

We would lay it down, then, as a rule, that the privilege of communion is, by right, under the control of the churches individually; and that the fact that a person is a member of a church, does not prove that he has a right to commune with any other church. Disregard of this rule opens the way of great abuses. The following statement has often been made, because it refers to facts of actual occurrence:—

A member of a church being subject to discipline, refuses to hear the church, and of course fellowship is withdrawn from him. Without any confession or any change of feeling, he goes to another church where, it may be, he has personal friends, and is received as a member. Returning to the church to which he first belonged, on the occasion of a quarterly meeting, he demands and receives the privilege of communion as a member of another church, this church all the while knowing that he has made no confession of his wrong, and is therefore unworthy of the privilege. If any inquire if we would not admit him out of respect to that other church of which he is a member, we answer: Not by any means. If the other church received him without knowing his standing, or that he had forfeited the right of membership, it would indorse our action in rejecting him when it learned the facts, if it had the Spirit of the gospel. But if it received him knowing the facts, then it has violated the rules of the gospel, and subjected itself to censure for subverting discipline.

Here the question may be raised: Do we not in this deny the independence of the churches, by denying them the right to judge of the qualifications of their own members? We have already, in another place, noticed this point. But we answer: We do indeed deny the right of any church to act independently of the rules laid down by Christ and his ambassadors. We have considered the words of Christ, that if his instructions were followed, and a member would not hear the church, he was to be considered as a heathen and a publican, and the action of the church, under such circumstances, shall be ratified in Heaven. If this be so, what is the standing of that church which disregards this action, and upholds the insubordinate member in his sin? For no one can deny that, to receive a man to membership in such a case, is to confirm and strengthen him in his rebellion against discipline. And the church of which such person was formerly a member, should duly report the case to the Conference to which the erring church belongs.

If the positions herein taken be true, and we think none can deny them, then the practice which is advocated by some, of indiscriminate communion with all churches, and on all occasions, cannot possibly be justified. And if baptism is an initiatory rite, without which a person cannot be a member of a church, and therefore cannot be entitled to church privileges, we can have no legal right to commune with, or to admit to our communion, those who have not been baptized, even though they may be members of some church. And it is a fact not disputed among us, that a person who has not been buried with Christ by baptism into death, has not been baptized. The formula may have been observed as far as speaking all the words is concerned, yet if the action of baptism be lacking, there is no baptism. And if no baptism, then no church membership; and if no church membership, no church privileges. This is sufficient to show the inconsistency of partaking of the communion with those who, however much we may esteem them otherwise, recognize and admit of church membership without baptism.

There are yet some other phases of this subject which must be reserved for future notice.