Receiving in/Right hand of fellowship

[ruthie]

I know that this is referred to in scripture (Galatians, I think) but I would love to know people’s opinions on this.

I tend to come at it from “it’s a lovely tradition” angle, rather than being something we HAVE to do. However, by creating “lovely traditions” are we adding things we shouldn’t?

We are having a double baptism next week at our meeting, and my husband is speaking at the baptism and on the Sunday too (coincidentally!) and as we are having a busy time at the moment, I am gathering thoughts ready for a ‘let’s sit down, discuss and write the talks type evening’ (not the I write his talks, but we get mutual benefit from studying and discussing them together).

Anyway – opinions (and scripture proofs), please?!

Thanks.x.

[David]

Gal2v9: Ga 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

It was all partaking of the work of Paul and Barnabas, that all were part of the work, this is the point of fellowship:

A similar process is seen in Acts 13v1 ¶ Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

Where the fellowship of all in the work of Paul and Barnabas was seen in laying on of hands.

The point is that fellowship of all the believers was the imporatant, indeed such fellowship is an essential first principle:

Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

But these verse refer to people already baptised, and sent to do a job in fellowsip with all.

Is there evidence of a special recieving in commanded for newly baptised, I don't think so, but is it anit scriptural then I think not, if God rejoices at the repentance of a sinner then we ought to do so as well.

Not all traditions are wrong, the whole thing with Purim it was instituted by man to commerate the Lord's deliverance, not by God's commend, but that is recorded in scripture and not condemned by God.

Is a recieving in good and helpful for the eclessia, then I think it might be, it is nice to say welcome to a new baby in Christ.

D

[Chester Draws]

Hello Ruthie

I don't know of any scriptures that support the tradition. Comparing the record in Galatians 2 with what usually happens at a Christadelphian meeting, the two are quite different.

In Galatians, there had been an agreement made (after a disagreement?) for Paul & Barnabas to go to the heathen and James Cephas & John to the circumcision. James Cephas & John give Paul & Barnabas the right handS of fellowship.

In our meetings one person (usually the president) represents the whole community, and welcomes a new convert into the worldwide Chrisadelphian fellowship with a right hand shake. The only common bit is the right hand and even that is wrong as it is the plural, hands, in Galatians.

So the former is a preaching context with scriptural backing and the latter a welcome without.

I understand that in some places a new convert is not allowed to break bread until they have been 'received in' by the above ceremony. More poppycock!!

I hope the above helps you feel that you are not alone. No doubt there will be vehement rebuttals.

In love,

[dkiversen]

Some meetings incorporate a breaking of bread into the baptismal service so there's no need for a separate "receiving in".

For Gal 2v9. It's right handS because four people are all offering their right hand to each other as a mark of fellowship. My experience is that a new member has a plethora of right hands to shake as the ecclesia all eagerly welcome them in, and that a lot of them are at the baptismal service rather than waiting for the next formal breaking of bread.

As pointed out above, the context of these hands with with already baptised and active members as a sign of solidarity with their work.

I think it is good to have a formal welcome to sharing in the emblems though it clearly is a convention rather than a matter of first principles or fellowship.

[David]

And because it is a convention doesn't make it wrong, and can be a good thing, their are loads of things we do which don't have a definite scritural verse you can go to, but are good things, sunday school for one, and meeting on a sunday was a convention that began early in the first centuary.

I think its nice to make a little bit of a fuss of the new brother or sister, and ask God's blessing on them specifically, and there is scriptural presidence for asking God to bless people.

D

[Chester Draws]

Contributors, so far, seem to think it a good and nice tradition.

As (it seems) there is no scriptural direction to ‘receive’ a new convert in this way would ecclesias be happy not to do it?

Is it wrong to insist that it should be done?

Are we actually saying that scripture is deficient by not including this as an act after baptism?

[David]

The first question I don't know, hopefully they would.

Second question Yes, though I do know people who had their first breaking of bread, before beig recieved in, so from my experience it seems a moot question.

Third question No. As long as the weightier matters of the law ar seen in their due importance.

Why should its acceptance as a nice tradition lead onto the the third question. Tere is a world of difference between something not directly mentioned in scripture and something being unscriptural, none of use praise God with the 10 stringed harp Ps 33:2, but is it wrong to praise God using a piano guitar organ etc etc.


Does it break any of Christ's commendments to have a recieving in, or is it in the spirit of christ for the eclessia to show its joy and love that someone has taken on the name of Christ?

D

[Hannah Bolton]

i have to agree with most of the comments made so far.

Before i got baptised i didnt go to the meeting much at all for about 18 months, but through a number of events that could not be coincidental, i received my "calling" and 2 months later i was baptised. i have never looked back. But becuase i hadnt been apart of the ecclesia for so long, it was so nice to be welcomed back with the right hand of fellowship, i felt like my absence didnt matter and that they were just so happy to have me back and i felt a part of the family. (David - Enzo did my receiving in. I was so pleased it was him. Ive still got his notes in my bible )

Tradition can be a bad thing. especially when things are done for tradition's sake rather than being scripturally correct. But doing a receiving in like we do, although we have no specific scriptural background for it, its not NONscriptural, and its just nice to give the new brother or sister a formal welcoming and as David said, make a fuss of them for a bit .

something that comes to mind is that we are the body of Christ, and i think giving someone the right hand of fellowship just helps to make the newbie feel welcome and important and a part of that body.

[dkiversen]

Maybe being pedantic on terminology but here goes...

I don't necessarily see a problem with something being UN-Scriptural, i.e. not mentioned in the Bible, as it may still be in the spirit of what the Bible says. I care very much if something is ANTI-Scriptural, i.e. contradicting what the Bible says.

[David]

there was me using non-scriptural as you can't find a specific verse, but it is not against the spirit of the word, and unscriptural as being against to what the bible says, are words and pedantry are such wonderful bedfellows.

D

[BDW]

It's just an acceptance of the baptised's fellowship and a welcoming of the baptised into their massive spiritual family.

[Bry]

I was baptised 8th Feb 2008, so it is still very fresh in my mind. Of course, it was exceptionally special and a few miles from my "home" ecclesia.

After lunch at home with my wife, I drove to our memorial meeting; my first one. That welcoming, the right hand, felt special too - a loving acceptance into my eternal family. I'll never forget how that handshake felt so very very special.

[Steven]

Originally Posted by Bry

I was baptised 8th Feb 2008, so it is still very fresh in my mind. Of course, it was exceptionally special and a few miles from my "home" ecclesia.

After lunch at home with my wife, I drove to our memorial meeting; my first one. That welcoming, the right hand, felt special too - a loving acceptance into my eternal family. I'll never forget how that handshake felt so very very special.

What an exceptionally special and lovely comment

[glimmer]

Originally Posted by Bry

That welcoming, the right hand, felt special too - a loving acceptance into my eternal family. I'll never forget how that handshake felt so very very special.

Yes - isn't it amazing how a simple handshake can be so meaningful!