QUESTION: What should be done if an assembly makes an unjust and wrong decision?

Before we try to answer, we should be very careful about calling certain decisions made by the assembly wrong or harmful. It may be that the brothers and sisters have acted on biblical principles of which we are unaware. In this case, although we believe they are wrong, the error will actually be ours.

On the other hand, it is possible that things were conducted in an erroneous manner and the assembly made the wrong decision. Assuming this is the premise of the question, we will try to answer it accordingly.

ANSWER: If something like this has occurred, I mean, if the assembly has made a wrong decision, there is always a recourse.

First, we can take the matter in prayer directly to the Lord, to Him who is the Head of the church. He can exercise the consciences of those in that locality until they correct their decision.

Second, the Lord can raise up prophets in the local assembly or send them from other assemblies to shed light on the conscience of that assembly so that the wrong decision can be corrected (2 Cor. 2:4; Rev. 2:13; 2 Chron. 24:19-22; Judg. 9:5-21).

Third, if that local assembly refuses to deal with its error, after this has been shown to it conclusively and in accordance with the Word of God, that decision can be repudiated by another assembly acting in the name of the body as a whole. The brothers and sisters of the other assembly would simply make a formal communication that the assembly that is falling into error is no longer on the true ground of the church of God. This responsibility is shown in the Lord's words to the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 2-3). He held “the angel” (the responsible leaders) of each assembly responsible for all the errors that were permitted there. But each message ends with the words “What the Spirit says to the churches” (plural). This demonstrates that although each assembly is responsible for dealing with evil in its midst, there is a corporate responsibility on the part of the other assemblies with regard to that matter, when the local assembly does not deal with the problem. The Lord does not speak in the passage as to how this should be done, but simply shows that there is a corporate responsibility on the part of the other assemblies.

This principle is magnified when we consider the figure in Deuteronomy 13. If evil was found in someone in a city in the land, the city in which the person lived was to “stone him” to death (vers. 6-11). Stoning speaks to us of the participation of the conscience of all in a local assembly that is engaged in judging an ungodly person in its midst. If it was discovered that a city had unjudged evil in its midst, then the other cities in the land were to act for the glory of God and judge that city. It was to be destroyed and turned forever into a heap of rubble (vers. 12-18). This demonstrates that there was a collective responsibility on the part of the cities in Israel to eliminate the evil that was in the land. In figure this speaks to us of the assembly that is proven to be unjust being repudiated by the other assemblies that have fellowship with it, as if it were no longer gathered on the true ground of the church.

As already mentioned, the removal of a lampstand in a locality is something the Lord does not do quickly. It is only after much insistence and after time has been given for them to repent that the Lord will raise up another assembly to repudiate the one that is in error. In this way, evidently, the wrong decision that the repudiated assembly maintained ceases to have effect. Meanwhile, until an assembly reaches the point of acting for the glory of God in a given matter (repudiating the assembly involved), our role is to submit to the decision and wait on God. We mention this to demonstrate that there is a recourse against the abuse of authority in administrative matters.

It is important to note that the Scriptures never instruct us to try to resolve matters individually ourselves, or to act independently when an assembly decision seems wrong to us; something like this would be the opposite of seeking to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). The independent action of individuals in collective matters such as an assembly decision is always condemned by the Scriptures (Deut. 17:12; Num. 15:30-31). Things like this only serve to open the door for the enemy to divide and scatter the flock. There is a divinely indicated way to deal with this type of problem, and we must follow it in order to maintain order.

Unfortunately many Christians fall into this error. They think they cannot subject themselves to something they believe to be unjust and incompatible with the Scriptures. They think they would be compromising a good conscience. Some will even say: “I must obey the Lord first, and not the brothers!” But that is an illusion. If the Lord can wait until the decision is rectified, why can't we do the same? An assembly that commits an error in its administrative responsibilities still has the Lord in its midst until it is formally repudiated. J. N. Darby said: “Why speak of obeying the Lord first and then the church? How can that be done supposing the Lord is in the church? It is merely a matter of establishing a private judgment in opposition to the judgment of the assembly gathered to the name of Christ according to His promise (if it is not a case of an assembly gathered to the name of Christ, then I have nothing to say). It is nothing more than saying, ‘Alone I consider myself wiser than those who are gathered.’ I completely reject the idea of obeying Christ first and then the church, as being something totally without biblical foundation.” Speaking of the same subject, he declared: “Therefore, the whole question is nothing but a mere sophism that betrays the desire to give free expression to self-will, based on the confidence that the judgment made by one person is superior to everything that has already been judged.”

It is important to understand that the assembly has been invested with the Lord's authority to act in His Name during His absence, and we must submit to its actions as being the final authority. In Matthew 18:18-20, when dealing with a certain matter, the Lord said: “Tell it to the church.” Then He went on to speak of the church's authority to act in His name, saying: “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” An example of this binding is found in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; an example of loosing appears in 2 Corinthians 2:6-

1. [Translator's note: ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ have the sense of making a decision and later revoking it;

it is not merely in the sense of ‘binding’ or ‘loosing’ someone from fellowship] However, the fact that the assembly has been given authority to act for the glory of God does not mean that its actions are infallible. J. N. Darby wrote a very profitable article on this, entitled “Confounding Authority With Infallibility”

(“Confounding Authority with Infallibility”). There he demonstrates that it is possible for an assembly to bind something that is wrong, and even so it will be bound in heaven -- at least until the action can be rectified. Many are confused by this. They cannot understand how a wrong decision could be ‘bound in heaven.’ However, the fact that it has been ‘bound in heaven’ does not necessarily mean that it has been approved by heaven. It simply means that heaven recognizes the decision. Heaven may not be pleased with the decision made by the assembly, but it endorses it. The assembly has been clothed with the Lord's authority to act for Him in His absence in a representative way; it is an extension of His authority on earth. Even though it is possible for an assembly to wrongly use the Lord's authority, even so the authority remains His.

We can better understand this principle in a family. In Darby's article, "Confounding Authority with Infallibility", he mentions the fact that, in the family, parents have received authority from God, and even so they are not infallible. Everyone in the family must submit to that authority. A father may discipline a child by mistake, but even so his authority is valid and the duty of everyone in the family is to submit. That is how order is maintained in a home. When it became clear that the father had made a mistake, the normal thing would be for him to acknowledge his error by humbly apologizing and making the necessary corrections. The same occurs with a policeman: he has authority to arrest someone, but since the policeman is not infallible, it is possible that he may commit errors. However his action continues to be valid and the person arrested has no alternative but to accept it, until it is proven that the action was wrong. If civil authorities were not like this, there would be no order in government and we would be living in a state of anarchy. Darby also wrote: “In a hundred situations obedience may be obligatory despite there being no infallibility. Otherwise, as you can easily see, there would be no order in the world... If there were no obedience in cases where there is no infallibility and if there were no submission to what has been decided, self-will would have no end and it would be impossible for order to exist.” In a similar way, decisions in assembly may not please heaven because it has committed an error in binding, but even so heaven endorses its decision for as long as necessary. That is how order is maintained in the house of God.

We should have a solemn attitude when we think of the possibility of using the Lord's authority wrongly and inadvertently identifying heaven with something that is not correct, thus incurring the Lord's governmental judgment. This is the real reason why the Lord ceased to be associated with the mass of Christian profession and adopted a remnant testimony. And if those identified with such a remnant testimony continue in a lamentable condition and compromising their responsibility, He will weigh His hand upon them in governmental judgment and reduce their number, sifting and scattering some so that those who remain may humble themselves. It is sad to say, but this has happened.

1. Potter wrote a brief text about the assembly's actions of binding and loosing, in the