What sort of interfaith ministries are appropriate?

In a measure, the same principle applies to co-operation with believers who do not gather according to Scripture and with whom we cannot have fellowship in the Lord's Supper. If I cannot have fellowship in the Lord's Supper, can I really co-operate with them without running a serious risk of having to compromise the message I bring?

Understanding and acceptance of scriptural teachings, accompanied by a desire to be obedient and faithful, will lead one to refuse to collaborate willingly (non-compulsorily) in the Lord's service with believers or associations which, though zealous and devoted, have or share doctrines alien to the Word, or who accept practices of which the Lord cannot approve. In Numbers 11:24-29 and Philippians 1:15-18 neither Moses nor Paul associated themselves with the work, yet they rejoice in what is accomplished.

Is the believer to be associated with an infidel for any purpose whatever, political, philanthropical, or religious? Scripture answers that question by another: What part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

Neither the warnings nor the motives confine themselves to worship, nor even have they any particular application that I can see. Chapter 6:1 is as large as can be. The principles of verses 14-17 are as general and absolute as possible. Christ has no accord with Belial anywhere, nor the temple of God with idols. God does not walk in our midst only in worship. I am not to touch unclean things everywhere, not in worship merely: I am not to touch it anywhere, because we form the temple of the living God. Being yoked is not worship: it is everything that brings us to community of thought and moral judgment. It is a question of receiving - being owned as - sons and daughters, not of worship. I do not see a trace of any application to worship in the passage, but of everything which puts two to pull together where moral principles are concerned. "Perfecting holiness in the fear of God" is the conclusion.

Hence, therefore, a child of God should refuse to be yoked with an unbeliever, whether for a domestic, a commercial, or a religious object, simply because God tells him to be separate, and not because of his own personal holiness. The carrying out of this principle, in matters of religion, will necessarily involve much trial and sorrow; it will be termed intolerance, bigotry, Narrow-mindedness, exclusiveness, and such like; but we cannot help all this. Provided we keep ourselves separate upon a right principle and in a right spirit, we may safely leave all results with God. No doubt, the remnant, in the days of Ezra, must have appeared excessively intolerant in refusing the co-operation of the surrounding people in building the house of God; but they acted upon divine principle in the refusal. "Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple to the Lord God of Israel, then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said to them, Let us build with you; for we seek your God as ye do; and we do sacrifice to him, since the days of Esar-haddon, king of Assur, which brought us up hither." This might seem a very attractive proposal — a proposal evidencing a very decided leaning toward the God of Israel; yet the remnant refused, because the people, notwithstanding their fair profession, were, at heart, uncircumcised and hostile. "But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said to them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house to our God; but we ourselves together will build to the Lord God of Israel." (Ezra 4:1-3.) They would not yoke themselves with the uncircumcised — they would not "plough with an ox and ass" — they would not "sow their field with mingled seed" — they kept themselves separate, even though, by so doing, they exposed themselves to the charge of being a bigoted, narrow-minded, illiberal, uncharitable set of people.

Hence therefore a child of God should refuse to be yoked with an unbeliever, whether for a domestic, a commercial, or a religious object, simply because God tells him to be separate, and not because of his own personal holiness. The carrying out of this principle in matters of religion will necessarily involve much trial and sorrow; it will be termed intolerance, bigotry, narrow-mindedness, exclusiveness, and such like; but we cannot help all this. Provided we keep ourselves separate upon a right principle and in a right spirit, we may safely leave all results with God. No doubt the remnant, in the days of Ezra, must have appeared excessively intolerant in refusing the co-operation of the surrounding people in building the house of God; but they acted upon divine principle in the refusal. "Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the Lord God of Israel; then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto Him since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither." This might seem a very attractive proposal - a proposal evidencing a very decided leaning toward the God of Israel; yet the remnant refused, because the people, notwithstanding their fair profession, were at heart uncircumcised and hostile. "But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel." (Ezra 4:1-3.) They would not yoke themselves with the uncircumcised; they would not "plough with an ox and ass;" they would not "sow their field with mingled seed;" they kept themselves separate, even though by so doing they exposed themselves to the charge of being a bigoted, narrow-minded, illiberal, uncharitable set of people.

All therefore that I would press upon the Christian reader is, that he should exercise judgment as to those with whom he yokes himself in matters of religion. If he is at this moment working in yoke or in harness with an unbeliever, he is positively violating the command of the Holy Ghost. He may be ignorantly doing so up to this, and if so, the Lord's grace is ready to pardon and restore; but if he persist in disobedience after having been warned, he cannot possibly expect God's blessing and presence with him, no matter how valuable or important the object which he may seek to attain. "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams."

We have only now to consider the philanthropic phase of the unequal yoke. Many will say, "I quite admit that we ought not to mingle ourselves with positive unbelievers in the worship or service of God; but then we can freely unite with such for the furtherance of objects of philanthropy - such for instance as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, reclaiming the vicious, in providing asylums for the blind and lunatic, hospitals and infirmaries for the sick and infirm, places of refuge for the homeless and houseless, the fatherless and the widow; and, in short, for the furtherance of everything that tends to promote the amelioration of our fellow-creatures, physically, morally, and intellectually."

As far as you know and believe, your brother belongs to the one, and you to the other. Would then a partnership in every day life and transactions be, in the eye of God, an equal or unequal yoke? Could you go to God on common ground together about everything, when you have discerned motives and objects in relation to God, though thankfully admitting your brother to be a moral and upright man? Surely the conclusion must be, that the result would be worse than yoking diverse animals together, from whence I believe the figure is taken and application given. As the Corinthians were emerging out of idolatry and its sad accompaniments, one sees a state of things different from the present form of all professedly adopting Christianity. But this alters not the standing truth: believer and unbeliever, the two being distinct, never can be brought to work together for the glory of God.

If God in grace has made the difference between you, can you form links where there is nothing in common, not merely as to eternity, but as to the present time, the alone given moment to glorify God? The point is, must business be done only for the bread that perisheth and simply in uprightness? or as having higher motives and objects threading through everything, such as no natural man can possibly have? For, consistently with a fallen nature and corrupt will, it must be, if at all, God second and self first. In this sense two so opposed in nature cannot possibly be partners, save by separating the interests of God and His claims from business, or by each acting dividedly in it, which would be a practical denial. Are we to live and act for Christ, as well as be controlled by truth in all matters of daily life? If so, how is it possible for an unconverted person to do this? In matters of mere right and wrong he may, but can a christian reduce practice to this, even in buying and selling? If prayer and thanksgiving are to be connected with everything, how can two with opposed natures carry out this? How irksome to the one, whilst happy and strengthening to the other!

There is evidently no mistake as to how far this goes, and how impossible for two to walk together in heart and purpose, if one does not know the Christ of God, or possesses not life in Him. If God therefore makes a difference and gives responsibility to such (outside the thought, much less the reach, of others) what have we to do or say, but happily obey, commending that life with its blessedness to those still strangers to it? I am sure, dear brother, it is your desire to please the Lord at all cost, I also see your exercise, so as not to exceed Scripture on the one hand (as alas! we judge many have lately done), neither to ignore our responsibilities when plainly set forth. For my own part I have not a doubt, that real union in trade with one not actually converted to God, however close the tie, would be for neither the glory of God nor the real blessing of those so united. True, Christendom presents a sad spectacle in this, whether socially, ecclesiastically, or commercially; nevertheless Scripture remains the unalterable test and unerring rule. If the former shows a sad mixture of "woollen and linen," the latter has forbidden it, and the approaching judgment of Christendom will be the righteous indignation of God upon its assumption and disobedience, though previously it may and will be salvation so as by fire to many, with loss brought about by unholy alliance and evil associations. I admit that many may be ignorant of what they do, and not wilful; yet one can but think, that the very instincts of the new nature would teach otherwise, and preserve from what Scripture clearly forbids. To be when converted in the position is another matter; for as to wife, husband, or calling, Scripture plainly advises abiding there if with God.