Christian Unity

Since we are in the midst of March Madness, I thought I’d resurrect this blog post from a couple of years ago. The NCAA basketball tournament really can teach us something important about biblical hermeneutics — something that is of central importance in the currently ongoing debates about fellowship and disfellowship among Christians.

Maybe we really can’t be as sure as we pretend to be about our understandings of scripture.

Twenty seven years had passed since Thomas Campbell had penned the Declaration and Address of 1809, launching a noble movement to bring to an end the ungodly divisions among Christian believers. There had been many victories and many defeats along the way. Having devoted so much of his life to bringing about unity, what lessons would the elder Campbell share with those coming afterward? What course corrections would he urge? What are the lessons learned, which might help the later generations to achieve the goal?

Looking back over the progress in those years, Thomas Campbell wrote an article summarizing his observations, which was published in his son Alexander’s journal, Millennial Harbinger, in May of 1836. In that article he revealed what he believed to be the most important mistakes being made in the Restoration Movement of his day:

Now, upon a serious review of the past, according to the extent of my information, it appears, that the progress of the reformation has been much retarded for want of a competent knowledge, on the part of the advocates, respecting the thing precisely intended; and, of the actual condition and disposition of the people in relation to it.

It seems that the movement was going off track. It’s advocates were already deviating from the original intent:

As to the nature and object of the proposed reformation, it is clearly and definitely expressed in the following proposition, viz.–“‘The restoration of primitive apostolic christianity in letter and spirit–in principle and practice;”–and has been so stated from our commencement.

It seems that the movement had already bogged down into intellectual debates over a myriad of doctrinal differences. Rather than resolving issues and creating unity, these debates were hardening positions and intensifying the divisions that were present. They were doing more harm than good to the cause of unity.

Campbell wrote to call the movement back to the seven core principles of scripture on which he believed unity should be based:

Now these are precisely seven, viz.–The knowledge of God–of man–of sin–of the Saviour–of his salvation–of the means of enjoying it–and of its blissful effects and consequences.

Campbell was urging those working for unity to stop debating peripheral matters, and to return to the kind of basic teaching which actually changes people’s lives. Mere intellectual debating of differences for the purpose of establishing orthodoxy was accomplishing nothing of lasting value:

Whereas, were we to refute all the errors in Buck’s Theological Dictionary by the common method of theological argumentation, we might, indeed, by so doing, make orthodox systematics; but not one real practical christian. And why? Because, in this way of arguing, the mind is turned away from itself, to sit as a judge in the case pending, so that the point at issue becomes an abstract truth, addressed purely to the understanding–not to the heart, as directly and immediately affecting the hearer himself; but merely to his judgment, to determine who is right. And, also, because that faith, the sole principle of pure christianity, and of all christian enjoyment, consists not in receiving the deductions of human reasoning, but only in the belief of the express testimony of God.

At its most basic level, Christianity is about sin, repentance, forgiveness, and living a godly life. Campbell reasoned that seeking to establish theological orthodoxy through debate accomplishes none of those things. Instead, it only leads to “partyism,” creating more controversy than it resolves.

If, then, we would produce theological orthodoxy, let us detect and expose the errors of every party that occurs, and thus furnish fuel for the fire of controversy which is the very element of partyism, without which it cannot exist. But if we would starve out partyism, and nourish christianity, let us preach the word in its proper order and connexion, for the express purpose for which it is given;–not, indeed, to make wise to disputation–but to salvation, thoroughly furnished to all good works.

Campbell lamented the way the scriptures were being used as a source of proof-texts to justify the existing divisions between believers:

That, after all the enormous labor and expense for preparing and maintaining a learned ministry, there is not to be found, this day, throughout all the sects, a single teacher, nor yet a single congregation under the tuition of such, that ever attempted or intended to teach, or to learn, the Bible, as a book, for the purpose of its being understood as a whole; but rather as a text or proof book, for the purpose of teaching, and learning, a party system!!!

He argued that, in answer to those who hold different doctrine, we should simply present the scriptures alone, without additional commentary, and leave it at that:

What should we do if personally attacked upon some principle of our christian profession? I answer, We should state and defend it by, and according to, the express testimony of the Holy Scriptures: that is, produce the divine declarations concerning it; and, if their meaning was disputed, then have recourse to the context, and to such other passages as went to determine the meaning of the phrases or terms in question. And having thus given the concurrent evidence of the divine testimony upon the subject, we have no more to say.

His own experience showed that this approach works:

The writer can truly say so from his own experience during the last five years of his public labors–that, during said period, having, for the most part, confined himself to the scripture development of these all-important practical topics, according to the humble measure of his attainments, he has experienced no direct opposition to the matter of his teaching,–no, not even upon baptism itself; though, perhaps, no scripture term is more universally abused, both by Romanists, and Protestants of every sect, save one.

Campbell called Christians to acknowledge a single premise on which unity could be built:

The all-sufficiency, and alone-sufficiency, of the Holy Scriptures, without comment or paraphrase, to make the believer wise to salvation, thoroughly furnished to all good works…

He believed that, in responding to controversies, by constraining our answers to the scriptures alone, we could eliminate controvsery, since all acknowledged that the scriptures are true.

Let this correct regular way of proceeding be but duly observed, and it will exclude a host of controversies; and conduce more to the reformation of the professing world, than did all the theological polemics since the days of Origen. These, indeed, could neither make nor edify christians; for nothing can do this, but the direct influence of the word, in its proper connexion, as has been already shown. Let us, therefore, “preach the word.”

Finally, he called on Christians to ignore differences of opinion which were not directly relevant to the seven core principles:

Besides, there are many opinions true, that are irrelevant; and whether true or false, if irrelevant, the person is left in the undisturbed possession of them, without injury either to himself or the good cause; and this, we see, was the Apostle’s method in such cases, even where he declares the opinions false: see Rom. 14th and 15th chs.

Campbell’s plea echoes the pastoral epistles of Paul, who taught that quarreling is unproductive:

1Tim 1:3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer
1Tim 1:4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work–which is by faith.

2Tim 2:14 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

2Tim 2:23 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.
2Tim 2:24 And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.

Campbell wrote these reflections 173 years ago. Yet the movement continued to ply its trade through polemics. The conversations of the movement continued to focus on doctrinal debate, striving to overcome objections through sheer force of argument. And unity among believers remains an elusive goal.

Maybe it is time to try Thomas Campbell’s way.

The Christian Standard currently is running a fascinating article (reprinted from 1985) titled Not the Only Christians. The author, Robert O. Fife, wrestles with the paradox faced by those of us (myself included) who believe the biblical purpose of baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. The paradox we face is that we see powerful evidence of the working of God in the lives of unbaptized believers — people who profoundly love God and give their lives (sometimes even literally) to His cause.

Fife makes an interesting distinction between what is essential to man and what is essential to God. He writes:

In the sense that the purpose of baptism is to bring us to the Savior, baptism is essential to man. It is a divinely given condition of the everlasting covenant mediated through the blood of Jesus and enunciated on Pentecost. We are not the initiators, but the recipients of that covenant. Therefore, we are subject to it, and bound by it. For this reason we may say that baptism is essential to man.

But does this mean that a believer’s baptism is essential to God? Can we correctly assume that because baptism is an essential covenant command to which we are subject, it is an essential covenant limitation to which God is subject?

What does Scripture say is essential to God? One quality of the being of God is God’s faithfulness. “Great is thy faithfulness,” declares the prophet (Lamentations 3:23). “God is faithful,” says the apostle (1 Corinthians 1:9). The ancient Christian hymn sang, “If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself” (2 Timothy 2:13). God will keep his covenant promise, for he is faithful. And it is his covenant commands and promises we are charged to proclaim.

Another attribute of the divine essence is gracious sovereignty. Hear the Word of God: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Exodus 33:19; Romans 9:15). God is not limited to the covenant conditions (as are we), for God is the gracious Lord of the covenant. Indeed, Jesus had to remind the Nazarenes that God’s mercy had extended beyond the commands and promises of his covenant with Israel. Profoundly offended, the Nazarenes attempted to throw him off a cliff (Luke 4:25-30).

But this does not permit us who are subjects of the covenant to neglect the commands and promises we are commissioned to proclaim. Nor does it permit us to say to unimmersed believers that they need not be immersed. Thankfully, it is for us to confess that God “will have mercy” on whom he has mercy. God has even had mercy on us.

That pretty much sums up my view on the subject. We have no standing to make promises on God’s behalf that go beyond what He has said. And we have no standing to tell God whom he can and cannot forgive. He will keep every one of his promises. But in those promises, God has left himself plenty of room to forgive others if he so chooses. It is highly presumptuous of man to insist that God will not forgive the penitent unimmersed. The truth is that we just don’t know for sure. Our task is to present the promises God has made — and not to try to limit God.

Over at Stoned-Campbell Disciple, Bobby has posted some interesting articles about how our Restoration Movement ancestors viewed baptism, including James Harding, J. W. McGarvey, and Alexander Campbell. Bobby himself asks, “Where does the slippery slope end?” He promises another article soon on where Walter Scott fits into this picture. Worthwhile reading that will make you think!

Christians have long wrestled with the relationship between our deeds and our salvation. Do our deeds save us? Or does salvation cause us to do good deeds? Can we be saved without the deeds? Do our actions have any bearing, either good or bad, on whether we will be saved?

These questions are as old as Christianity itself. Paul wrote extensively about these issues in Romans and Galatians. James addressed them in chapter two of his letter. Fifteen hundred years later, Martin Luther and John Calvin took issue with the Catholic church over related questions. Today, Christian theology is divided into Calvinist and Arminian / Wesleyan camps over these very matters.

Jesus taught a short parable in Luke 17 that sheds light on the question:

Luk 17:7 “Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’?
Luk 17:8 Would he not rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’?
Luk 17:9 Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do?
Luk 17:10 So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’ “

Jesus used a familiar metaphor to describe how a servant of God should view himself and his service. The servant was expected to perform certain duties in the field, then to prepare his master’s supper, and to wait until his master was finished before he could begin his own supper.

The servant in Jesus’ parable had to do some things. Before, during, and after doing all those things, he was still his master’s servant. He could not eat his own supper until after he had done what was expected. Fulfilling his duties did not earn him any special rights.

Jesus taught that, after doing everything, we should say “We are unworthy servants.” Americans often have a hard time embracing the “unworthy” part. From childhood we’ve been stroked and encouraged to view ourselves as very “worthy.” We expect to be compensated for our efforts. We have our rights. But a servant does not have rights. God does not owe us a single thing for our service. It is impossible for a mortal to make God indebted to him or her.

Instead, we owe God. God created us, and God owns us. We owe God a perfect, sinless life from beginning to end. We owe Him a life in which we complete every task God has given us to do. We have already blown it. If we were to live a perfect life from today onward, there would be no surplus goodness in that with which to pay off our past debt. Nothing we do can make up for our failures. We can never even begin to pay off our debt.

Salvation is a gift of God, given on his terms. We cannot earn it. But there are terms, and those terms include service. Our deeds of service are not optional! The irony is that God chooses to reward our service (Matt 25:21,23). But remember also, God will not reward us if we refuse to serve (Matt 25:24-30).

The message of Jesus’ parable is that we should remember who we are. We are servants, not employees. We have no rights. We are expected to serve.

Joh 3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.
Joh 3:2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Nicodemus was a prominent, powerful man in first century Jerusalem. His status as a Pharisee placed him in rare company as devout worshipper of God, having pledged himself to take extraordinary measures to obey the Law of Moses, including all of the minutae derived from that Law by the scribes. And his position as a member of the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin, meant that he held power and influence throughout Judea. It was no small matter that such a man chose to come to Jesus with a statement such as the one recorded in the third chapter of the gospel of John.

We hear of Nicodemus two other times (John 7:50, John 19:39). In both cases Nicodemus put his own reputation at risk due to his faith in Jesus. He was a man who thought for himself, and was willing to take personal risk in order to do what is right.

Let’s take a look at the world in which Nicodemus lived. In his commentary on John 3, William Barclay says:

To the Jew the Law was the most sacred thing in all the world. The Law was the first five books of the Old Testament. They believed it to be the perfect word of God. To add one word to it or to take one word away from it was a deadly sin. Now if the Law is the perfect and complete word of God, that must mean that it contained everything a man need know for the living of a good life, if not explicitly, then implicitly. If it was not there in so many words, it must be possible to deduce it. The Law as it stood consisted of great, wide, noble principles which a man had to work out for himself. But for the later Jews that was not enough. They said: “The Law is complete; it contains everything necessary for the living of a good life; therefore in the Law there must be a regulation to govern every possible incident in every possible moment for every possible man.” So they set out to extract from the great principles of the law an infinite number of rules and regulations to govern every conceivable situation in life. In other words they changed the law of the great principles into the legalism of by-laws and regulations.

The best example of what they did is to be seen in the Sabbath law. In the Bible itself we are simply told that we must remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy and that on that day no work must be done, either by a man or by his servants or his animals. Not content with that, the later Jews spent hour after hour and generation after generation defining what work is and listing the things that may and may not be done on the Sabbath day. The Mishnah is the codified scribal law. The scribes spent their lives working out these rules and regulations. In the Mishnah the section on the Sabbath extends to no fewer than twenty-four chapters. The Talmud is the explanatory commentary on the Mishnah, and in the Jerusalem Talmud the section explaining the Sabbath law runs to sixty-four and a half columns; and in the Babylonian Talmud it runs to one hundred and fifty-six double folio pages. And we are told about a rabbi who spent two and a half years in studying one of the twenty-four chapters of the Mishnah.

The kind of thing they did was this. To tie a knot on the Sabbath was to work; but a knot had to be defined. “The following are the knots the making of which renders a man guilty; the knot of camel drivers and that of sailors; and as one is guilty by reason of tying them, so also of untying them.” On the other hand knots which could be tied or untied with one hand were quite legal. Further, “a woman may tie up a slit in her shift and the strings of her cap and those of her girdle, the straps of shoes or sandals, of skins of wine and oil.” Now see what happened. Suppose a man wished to let down a bucket into a well to draw water on the Sabbath day. He could not tie a rope to it, for a knot on a rope was illegal on the Sabbath; but he could tie it to a woman’s girdle and let it down, for a knot in a girdle was quite legal. That was the kind of thing which to the scribes and Pharisees was a matter of life and death; that was religion; that to them was pleasing and serving God.

Take the case of journeying on the Sabbath. Exo 16:29 says: “Remain every man of you in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” A Sabbath day’s journey was therefore limited to two thousand cubits, that is, one thousand yards. But, if a rope was tied across the end of a street, the whole street became one house and a man could go a thousand yards beyond the end of the street. Or, if a man deposited enough food for one meal on Friday evening at any given place, that place technically became his house and he could go a thousand yards beyond it on the Sabbath day. The rules and regulations and the evasions piled up by the hundred and the thousand.

Take the case of carrying a burden. Jer 17:21-24 said: “Take heed for the sake of your lives and do not bear a burden on the Sabbath day.” So a burden had to be defined. It was defined as “food equal in weight to a dried fig, enough wine for mixing in a goblet, milk enough for one swallow, honey enough to put upon a wound, oil enough to anoint a small member, water enough to moisten an eye-salve,” and so on and on. It had then to be settled whether or not on the Sabbath a woman could wear a brooch, a man could wear a wooden leg or dentures; or would it be carrying a burden to do so? Could a chair or even a child be lifted? And so on and on the discussions and the regulations went.

It was the scribes who worked out these regulations; it was the Pharisees who dedicated their lives to keeping them. Obviously, however misguided a man might be, he must be desperately in earnest if he proposed to undertake obedience to every one of the thousands of rules. That is precisely what the Pharisees did. The name Pharisee means the Separated One; and the Pharisees were those who had separated themselves from all ordinary life in order to keep every detail of the law of the scribes.

Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and it is astonishing that a man who regarded goodness in that light and who had given himself to that kind of life in the conviction that he was pleasing God should wish to talk to Jesus at all.

Thus was the setting in which Nicodemus lived.

The notion of deriving commands from scripture through inference was not invented by the Protestant Reformation, nor by the Restoration Movement of the 19th century. As Barclay points out, they were convinced that “if it was not there in so many words, it must be possible to deduce it.” Though that comment was made about the Pharisees, it could as easily have been made about the churches of Christ. And that should scare us just a bit.

God had not instructed the scribes and the Pharisees to build this complex set of regulations around the Law. And he did not approve of the fact that they did so. Instead, Jesus often delivered sobering rebukes to the scribes and the Pharisees:

Mat 23:13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

Mat 23:24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Mat 16:6 Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

In one particular encounter, Jesus got more specific in his rebuke of the scribes and the Pharisees:

Mar 7:5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?”
Mar 7:6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
” ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Mar 7:7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’
Mar 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
Mar 7:9 And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
Mar 7:10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,'[4] and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’
Mar 7:11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God),
Mar 7:12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.
Mar 7:13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

In the parallel passage recorded in Matthew, Jesus specifically warned his disciples about the scribes and the Pharisees:

Mat 15:12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”
Mat 15:13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
Mat 15:14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

Churches of Christ would do well to consider whether we have done the same things that the Pharisees did, and therefore have fallen under the same rebukes. Like the Pharisees, our forefathers in churches of Christ have diligently sought to extract inferences from scripture to regulate many aspects of our Christian lives. These inferences have given us division over musical instruments, missionary societies, orphanages, kitchens, Sunday school classes, choirs, communion cups, and a litany of other topics on which no explicit teaching is found in scripture. By teaching and enforcing these inferred rules, we have nullified the explicit biblical commands for unity and against factions. We have chosen to divide over our inferred rules rather than to accept one another in the interest of unity.

Nicodemus had heard some of what Jesus was teaching. He had heard of the miracles. He knew Jesus came from God, because of the miracles. And so he made a choice to question the status quo of the first century Jewish leadership, and to learn and to follow the teachings of Jesus. He had spent long enough straining out gnats and swallowing camels.

Maybe that could be said of us as well.

The Christian Chronicle recently posted an article about the decline of churches of Christ in the United States.

Over at the One in Jesus blog, Jay has been commenting on the report and the decline which it documents. In his latest article he traces the roots of decline back to certain key 19th century figures in the Restoration Movement, influenced by the Landmark Baptists who were active in the same area of the country. Jay wrote:

What happened, I think, is the Movement absorbed a great number of Baptists from the same cultural pool that produce the Landmark Baptist movement in the 1850s — but with roots going back to the 17th Century.

I blogged similar thoughts back in 2007, focusing on the emergence of a hermeneutic based on the silence of the scriptures. It seems that the views brought into the Restoration movement from some exclusive Baptist groups gained influence in the second half of the 19th century, diverting the course of the Restoration Movement from its original goal to unify all Christians. These influences resulted in increasing intolerance toward any variation in beliefs. Controversies flared over fund raisers, non-church institutions doing Christian work, the “located preacher” or pastor-led church, and instrumental music, just to name a few.

Within a few decades, the Restoration Movement blew apart at Sand Creek as a result of this intolerance. Since that time, the movement has suffered division after division over some of the most arcane differences imaginable — whether to have a kitchen in the church building; whether to eat in the building; pre-millennialism /post-millennialism / amillennialism; use of the mass media; campus ministries; missionary societies; military service; voting; holding public office; using wine in communion; offering communion twice on Sunday; delivering communion to the sick; taking communion with individual cups; breaking your own piece of communion bread or passing already broken pieces; Christian colleges; whether an elder becomes disqualified when his wife dies; whether all of an elder’s children must be Christians; whether an elder becomes disqualified if one of his children leaves the faith; differences over divorce and remarriage… Christians have parted company over differences on all of these topics, and more. Intolerance has become the guiding principle for fellowship in churches of Christ.

Meanwhile, in 21st century America, intolerance is not a very effective way to win the lost — nor to save our children. So the church declines.

Tracing the history of intolerant thought in the Restoration Movement, Jay provides a few rather shocking quotes, including this one from Moses Lard:

For if both of these men be true Christians neither more nor less, evidently there cannot exist between them even a nominal, to say nothing of a real difference…… Consequently they are now, be it supposed, Christians strictly according to the Bible; that is, they mentally accept and in heart hold, as the matter of their faith, precisely and only what the Bible certainly teaches; they do and practice what, and only what, it either expressly or by precedent enjoins; in spirit, temper, and disposition, they are exactly what it requires; and as to names, they wear none save those which it imposes.

It is astonishing to me that learned men would consider such a standard for fellowship. What were they thinking? Surely the apostle Paul did not use that standard when he called the Corinthian church “brothers.” Amazingly, we still find educated leaders in some churches of Christ who teach similarly exclusive views on salvation and fellowship.

But not all churches of Christ hold such views. Many are finding biblical basis to challenge the intolerant conclusions of the past. So there is hope. One by one, people even from the conservative churches are starting to question inconsistencies between the teaching and the practice of the more exclusive conservatives. Going back to the scriptures, some are learning a better way to handle diverse viewpoints, without breaking fellowship.

Let’s not abandon our love for scripture. And let’s not abandon our careful use of scripture. But let’s gain some humility, and let’s learn to admit that we might be wrong about a few things. We need to recognize our own need for grace, and therefore to extend grace to others. Let’s accept one another and leave room for God to make us all stand.

Rom 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Today I want to extend my comments about the fellowship dilemma in the conservative churches of Christ.

These churches rely heavily on 2 John 1:9-11 to support their highly restrictive doctrine of fellowship. Let’s take a look at the short book of 2 John to see what the apostle was talking about.

The concluding verses give us some insight into the context in which John wrote the letter:

2Jo 1:12 I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.
2Jo 1:13 The children of your chosen sister send their greetings.

The letter is apparently intended for a particular congregation. John was hoping to visit them soon (vs 12) and preferred to communicate with them face to face. There were many things that John needed to address. But there was only one issue that couldn’t wait for that face-to-face meeting. It was this issue that prompted the short letter.

John began the letter with a cordial greeting (vs 1-3). Then in verses 4-6 he gives a general admonishment to obedience and love. That was undoubtedly his message whenever he communicated with a church, and yet it is not the driving issue that motivated the apostle to write the letter.

The urgent matter he wrote to address appears in verse 7:

2Jo 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
2Jo 1:8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.
2Jo 1:9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
2Jo 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.
2Jo 1:11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

Here was the serious matter, the one about which John was compelled to write immediately rather than wait for his upcoming visit. There were some deceivers who were spreading a fundamentally false teaching about Jesus. They taught that Jesus did not literally come in the flesh — the emerging Gnostic heresy. There was the very real threat that the Christians in that church could be led astray by this false teaching. As a result, the church leaders who directly received his letter could lose the reward for which they had labored in the church (1 Cor 3:15). John did not mince words. Those who taught this heresy had abandoned the teaching of Christ and did not have God. John instructed the church not to welcome these deceivers nor to accept them into their homes. No Christian should offer support nor assistance to the deceivers. Their teaching must be stopped.

In conclusion, John pointed out that there were many other things he needed to teach them, but that would have to wait. He was not writing to communicate about those other topics. The purpose of the letter was more specific than that.

This short letter was not instructing the church to start withdrawing fellowship over any and every doctrinal issue. It was addressing a single urgent doctrinal issue. Those who use verse 9 to justify withdrawing fellowship over other matters are going beyond what is written. By their own standard, they would be out of fellowship, because they are teaching this passage in error. They promote division from people whom God has accepted. In doing so the violate direct commands of God because of their error– commands for unity and against divisiveness.

May God give us all greater insight into His will, and may He heal our divisions.