IN HIS NAME Original Title: QUESTIONS YOUNG PEOPLE ASK REGARDING THE GROUND OF GATHERING FOR CHRISTIANS GOOD QUESTIONS THAT DESERVE GOOD ANSWERS VOLUMES 1 AND 2 Author: BRUCE ANSTEY Translation: MARIO PERSONA — page 41

which he says that the expression "anything" in Matthew 18:19 is anything indeed, without any condition. The assembly may make a decision to bind or not, according as it deems it to be necessary or not to do so for the glory of the Lord. Some think that this is more like the papacy and that it would give the assembly an unquestionable authority. These will argue that if "anything" is unconditional, then the assembly could bind anything at its own pleasure, and that would automatically be bound in heaven. They think that this would make heaven dependent on the actions of the church on earth, and should the assembly commit an error, heaven would be in fellowship with the error. However, such an idea has no foundation. We have already demonstrated that the Lord remains in the midst of an assembly in error and that has evil in its midst, until this is rectified or it is formally repudiated.

It is sad that many have been deceived by such a mistaken idea that unless a decision of the assembly has the seal of the Word of God, such a decision will not be ratified in heaven and will not have the power to subject anyone to it on earth. In other words, the decision would only be a decision to bind when it were a correct decision. What these people are really saying, even though they do not realize it, is that all the correct decisions of the assembly would be infallible. In acting administratively to make a decision to bind, the assembly would never be wrong! Those very ones who accuse the brothers and sisters of papism are those who support infallibility. J. N. Darby's article demonstrates that this mistaken idea confuses authority with infallibility.

At first sight it seems logical, according to this argument, not to submit to an unjust decision, but behind this idea is the enemy's attempt to introduce confusion into the assembly and to undermine its authority and its decisions. All that anyone would need to do would be to declare that a decision of the assembly is unjust and conclude that, consequently, heaven would not bind it. And if heaven did not accept it, then people should likewise reject it. This is a very convenient way of setting aside the decisions of the assembly that do not please us. If the administrative actions of the assembly only required submission on the condition that they be just decisions, then all order would be compromised. This erroneous idea places the judgments of the assembly under our own individual judgment. If it were so, the assembly would cease to be the highest court of authority in these matters, and the position would pass to our own individual judgment! The result is that everyone would be dependent on what seemed right "in their own eyes" (Judges 21:25). However, J. N. Darby wrote that "to a judgment made by an assembly, even if considered erroneous, I must in principle accept it and submit to it."

In an effort to deny the force of the "all" of Matthew 18:18 some have wrongly decided that verse 19 refers to a prayer meeting. The reasoning is that, if the prayers of the assembly are subject to the qualification of heaven (for God only answers our prayers when they are in accordance with His will), then the "all" that the assembly bound should be subject to the approval of heaven. It is a clever reasoning, but one that takes verse 19 out of its context. The passage is not referring to a prayer meeting, but to those gathered to the name of the Lord, gathered as such to act in their administrative responsibilities in making decisions that have the effect of binding. It is a meeting for discipline. In 1 Corinthians 5:4-5 Paul speaks of the same kind of meeting. If in Matthew 18:19 the Lord were referring to the prayer meeting, then He would have changed the subject right in the middle of His dissertation on the administrative actions of the assembly. Then He would have returned to the previous subject that has to do with the presence of the Lord in the midst of the assembly, and with its saints having to exercise a spirit of forgiveness toward a repentant brother after he has sinned (vers. 20-35). It would not make any sense. The purpose of verses 19 to 20 is that the assembly gathers with the Lord in the midst to invoke God to ratify its decision to bind. The promise is clear: "It will be done for them by my Father who is in heaven". (Verse 20 may even be read at the breaking of bread, but it only establishes the fact that the Lord is in the midst of His saints when gathered in assembly).

For those who question whether "all" means anything that the assembly can judge, we suggest reading 2 Corinthians 2:10. There we see that when it comes to undoing an action of binding Paul says: "And to whom you forgive anything...". If they are seen there forgiving "anything" it is because they must necessarily have bound "all". This should not be difficult to understand for someone with the disposition for it, but that is where the question lies. Do we really wish to know the will of the Lord? Sometimes people make so much noise because they consider that the assembly may have made the wrong decision, that it becomes difficult to understand where they are going. But, sincerely, when does it happen that an assembly makes a wrong decision? Rarely. Potter used to say that in the 50 years in which he was gathered with the brothers and sisters he never knew of any decision of the assembly to which he could not submit.

For some, the solution would be for there to be another stage in which the assembly would review the original decision made by that same assembly. C. D. Maynard said that "an assembly, when gathered to the Name of Christ, has Him in its midst, and possesses His authority to act in binding or loosing the sins of a guilty brother (Matt. 18:18-20). Such a decision is ratified in heaven. From this decision there is no appeal, except to Christ in glory, since Jesus Himself 'committed Himself to Him who judges righteously' (1 Pet. 2:23)... Some might say that if a local assembly were supposedly to judge wrongly, there would be the possibility of appealing to another local assembly, for example, to restore someone unjustly put out of fellowship. Such an idea has as much biblical foundation as any corruption introduced by Romanism. What such an idea really does is deny the practical unity of the two meetings. The mere thought of this already means rejecting that there is one body and one Spirit. If the Lord's table is one, the two meetings are linked when one of them makes a decision, therefore there is no way to appeal. If they could review one another's judgment, the unity of the Spirit would not exist there and they would be nothing more than independent meetings." The lack of understanding of this important principle in matters involving the assembly lies behind many of the sad divisions that have occurred among those gathered to the Name of the Lord over the years. Therefore, we will do well if we ponder these things carefully.

Another mistaken idea of some is that if the assembly makes a wrong decision it will lose the ground it occupies as gathered to the name of the Lord, and will no longer be on divine ground. This is an outrageous error. Once again such an idea demonstrates the ignorance that exists when authority is confused with infallibility. The fact that an assembly is invested with authority, and not with infallibility, means that it has the possibility of making a mistake. In making a mistake, the assembly does not lose its status of being biblically gathered, just as parents in a family do not cease to be parents because they made a mistake in disciplining a child.

An example of this misconception is what happened in Tunbridge Wells in 1908-1909. Many thought that the actions the assembly had taken, first of silencing (1903), and later of excluding C. Strange from fellowship (1908), had been unjust. Believing that the Tunbridge Wells decisions had been unjust and without biblical foundation, some people thought that the assembly would have lost its status as an assembly truly gathered to the Name of the Lord. As a consequence, many did not want to submit to the decisions of their assembly. W. R. Dronsfield proposed this mistaken idea on page 33 of his book "The Brethren Since 1870", saying that "if two or three are truly gathered to the Name of the Lord, any decision they may come to must be fit for heaven to recognize as such. However the reverse is also true, that is, that if those gathered come to an invalid and unjust decision, they cannot be gathered to the Name of the Lord." This mistaken idea led to a sad division among the brothers and sisters.

IN SUMMARY: If we think the assembly made a mistake in binding a decision: First, we need to be sure we have understood the principles involved. It may be that we are misinformed and ignorant of some biblical principles. If it was still a wrong decision, we should present it to the Lord, the Head of the church, in prayer.

Second, we should express our convictions -- based on the Scriptures -- to the brothers and sisters and wait for them to be exercised about it.

Third, we should wait on the Lord so that He can intervene and make the correction. We can rest in the certainty that He will intervene, in His own time and in His own way; faith will wait on Him. If it is a serious error, it may be that the Lord will guide another assembly to formally repudiate that assembly which claims to be on divine ground.

Meanwhile, we should not take the matter into our own hands and start campaigning among the saints to boycott the decision. It is possible to fight for the right cause, but in the wrong way, which only generates confusion. It is common for those who act in the flesh in assembly matters to end up hurt -- even if they are fighting for what is right! The Lord said: "Put your sword back in its place; for all who take up the sword will perish by the sword" (Matt. 26:52).