The Christadelphian April 1939, John Carter

“The Amity Movement: Some Criticisms”

A number of meetings have been held in different parts of the country under the auspices of the Amity Movement. For the most part the members of the Committee of this movement are in Suffolk Street fellowship, and the aim of the meetings and other activities is “to propagate diplomatically” the ideas of amity, apparently without the frank facing of what conditions are necessary before reunion would be possible.

A programme of one of these meetings is before us, and at the foot of page 4 we find the words, “That there be no divisions among you” (1 Cor. 1:10)’ We have heard these words quoted before, and as they stand they appear to support the objects of the promoters of these meetings. But let us look at the context. Very earnestly Paul addresses the Corinthians. “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” The emphasis of the apostle’s appeal is upon unity of mind, all speaking the same thing, that with this condition prevailing there might be no divisions. Where there is not harmony in what is taught, there is division, and the apostle would not have it otherwise. False teaching is a cause of division where there is faithful contention for the faith. Those who thus produce division have to be “marked” and “avoided” (Rom. 16:17). Paul counselled faithful shepherds to “watch” the flock when “grievous wolves” enter in. Such wolves are described as men who arise in the ecclesias, “speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:28–31).

To quote the phrase “that there be no divisions among you” can hardly be considered a right dividing of the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15; 2 Cor. 4:2; 2:17). Let the Amity Movement put on their programmes the omitted words, “All speak the same thing,” and “be perfectly joined in the same mind and in the same judgment”; and if these commands are acted upon we are on the way to healing divisions.

…

The efforts that are being made to minimise the differences between the two sections will not help reunion. The way is open for any in the Suffolk Street Fellowship if they accept the Statement of Faith of the Central Fellowship to join that fellowship. The Amity Movement would be doing good service if it confined its attention to bringing the Suffolk Street ecclesias into harmony with the position adopted by the Central ecclesias in belief and fellowship. The adoption and application of the Statement and Fellowship Clauses of the Constitution of the Central ecclesias by the Suffolk Street ecclesias would remove the barriers that exist to Amity and Fellowship. How far they have to go is in part evident from the above letters.

Another partial quotation in the literature of the Amity Movement occurs in a circular originally intended for Suffolk Street ecclesias. Our own words in an Editorial, in June, 1938, written in an endeavour to be quite fair, but to which some in our own fellowship objected at the time as conceding too much, are quoted: “We have for ourselves always avoided describing the Suffolk Street ecclesias as Partialists—we agree it is not a correct description.” But why was not the context quoted which concerns the practical problem? We added: “But we do consider them lax in fellowship. We think they supported error fifty years ago: we will quote their rules for to-day and let them witness for themselves concerning the present position.”

Why do not the brethren of Suffolk Street ecclesias recognise, as we were compelled to recognise, that a mistake was made fifty years ago in tolerating partial inspiration; and that the mistake is continued to-day in toleration of other false doctrines?

Union is a desirable thing, but loyalty to the Truth is a necessary thing.

J.C.

The Christadelphian June 1939, John Carter

“The Young Christadelphians’ Amity Movement”

We have had several enquiries eoncerning an 8-page booklet entitled The Young Christadelphians’ Amity Movement. It has apparently been widely circulated and a number of copies have been sent to us by brethren who have received them.

In October of last year a circular was sent to many young brethren and sisters signed by seven brethren who are not in our fellowship, setting out the aims of the Movement as defined at “the inaugural meeting.” These were given in “the following motions”:

“1. That the primary aim of the movement shall be to foster better relations with the Temperance Hall Brethren.

2. That members of the movement communicate with all Temperance Hall Brethren and Sisters who approve of the aim of the movement. And that these Brethren and Sisters be encouraged to propagate diplomatically the principles of the ‘Amity Movement’ among their Brethren.”

The booklet is written on behalf of a “Committee,” and signed by the Secretary, who says in his introduction:

“We believe in the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ. We believe that the Scriptures are wholly inspired and infallible.

“We endeavour at all times to follow the example of Jesus, being in the world, yet maintaining a separateness from it: abstaining from voting in either parliamentary or local elections; and refusing employment which involves the manufacture of armaments, or military service of any kind.

It is our earnest desire that all who hold these principles should be knit together in love.”

But for whom do the writers speak? For themselves only? We shall show that they are not speaking for the fellowship to which the secretary belongs, and we think this should have been made clear.

Discussing “What is Division?” the pamphlet comments upon one section withdrawing from everyone associated with another section, which is called “collective withdrawal,” and then enquires:

“What are the scriptural grounds for withdrawal? The following quotations make them perfectly clear: 1 Tim. 6 : 4–5; 2 Thess. 3 : 6, 11, 15; 1 Cor. 5 : 11; 2 John 10. It is evident that the grounds are, strife, perverse disputing, laziness, gossiping, fornication, covetousness, idolatry, railing, drunkenness, extortion, false doctrine, and disorderly walk. These quotations are a definite guide to us. Let us guard against adding to these what we consider should be the basis for withdrawal.”

This is good so far as it goes; but in the list of “grounds of withdrawal” drawn from the passages cited, while “false doctrine” is rightly included, we note the omission of toleration of false doctrine. The last scripture cited reads: “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is a partaker of his evil deeds.” Is retaining in fellowship those known to be holding false doctrine, “receiving them” and partaking of their deeds? This brings us to the crux of the present position, which is closely connected with the actions of the past. It is easy to say, Let the past be gone; we live in the present. But we must recognise that the present has grown out of the past, and may indeed continue the same conditions. The pamphlet tells us “worthy brethren are refused on account of actions of those who have passed away.” We are not clear concerning the reference in this sentence, whether it refers to the actions of those who introduced false doctrine or of the one who resisted them. It may be well therefore to glance at the cause of division and the conditions of to-day arising out of actions then taken.

We have read practically all written about the events of fifty years ago; but we will quote the Editor of The Fraternal Visitor. In a letter from him to brother Walker, published in The Christadelphian, 1921, page 19, he says: “As everybody knows the suggestion that inspiration did not ensure freedom from error was introduced by brother Ashcroft, in the Exegetist, and supported by brother Chamberlain.” Our “young Christadelphians” should first of all therefore remember that erring inspiration was then taught. No one can read the extensive answers in The Christadelphian of that time without concluding that there were others holding the doctrine besides the two named. Brother Roberts determinedly opposed the teaching, and in the upshot division occurred. There have been criticisms of the method employed, which we are not concerned to excuse or defend. What is certain is that these two brethren remained for a time in fellowship with what was then the Masonic Hall fellowship. To quote again from the letter of the Editor of the Fraternal Visitor: “The author of those views soon left our fellowship.” This statement does not adequately show the extent of the support given to brother Ashcroft by the Masonic Hall fellowship. He started a magazine called The Truth, which ran for some nine months or so, to which Intelligence was sent by the Masonic Hall ecclesia and other ecclesias associated with them. It may be said that the journal edited by brother Ashcroft was the only channel through which ecclesial communication could be made. But if that were so, was there not toleration if not an implied support of his views, in such a use of his magazine? Be that as it may, the second thing we would impress upon our “young Christadelphians” is that the authors of this admittedly wrong doctrine were then not refused fellowship.

What of the position to-day? We have for ourselves always avoided describing the Suffolk Street ecclesias as “Partialists”—we agree it is not a correct description. But we do consider them lax in fellowship. We think they supported error fifty years ago: we will quote their rules for to-day and let them witness for themselves concerning the present position. The attitude of the two sections with regard to fellowship is set out in the Constitution of the Central Ecclesia, and the Rules of the Suffolk Street ecclesia. We will put the relative clauses side by side:—

Central Ecclesia.

30. — That any brother departing from any element of the One Faith, as defined by us in our Statement of Faith appended, shall, on proof of the fact being given to the satisfaction of the arranging brethren, cease to be in fellowship, without a formal vote of withdrawal, on the fact being announced to the ecclesia. 

Suffolk St. Ecclesia.

8.—That no brother shall be eligible for appointment to office in the Ecclesia who is not prepared to uphold the teaching of the articles of the Ecclesial Statement of Faith.

9.—That the vote of a majority of the Ecclesia may at any time remove a brother from office and a special meeting of the Ecclesia may declare an office vacant if the holder of it is proved to have departed from the Faith in any of its vital elements.

We observe at once the difference between the two sections. The Central ecclesia withdraws from any holding false doctrine. The Suffolk Street ecclesia regards holding false doctrine only as a disqualification for office. A brother may depart from a “vital element,” but no question of fellowship arises.

Now the authors of this 8-page booklet recognise that false doctrine is a ground for withdrawal, as we have before seen. But the rules quoted say it is a sufficient cause only for removal from office. For whom then does the pamphlet speak? Certainly not for the Suffolk Street ecclesia. How do those in the “Suffolk Street” fellowship who are responsible for the pamphlet reconcile their position with these rules?

The pamphlet also says: “We abstain from voting; and refuse military service of any kind.” But we must again ask, For whom do the writers speak? In the Rules of the Suffolk Street ecclesia we find:

“11.—That any brother acting contrary to the teaching of Christ by joining the Military Forces, or engaging in Party Politics, shall be ineligible to hold any ecclesial office.”

It is evident that while it is recognised that joining Military Forces, or engaging in Party Politics is contrary to the teaching of Christ, those doing either of these may still retain their fellowship. Prominent brethren of the Suffolk Street fellowship have in fact engaged in politics. What action has been taken? None. During the Great War a brother of the Suffolk Street fellowship and a Town Councillor engaged in recruiting soldiers under the Derby scheme, and in the course of so doing visited a brother for the purpose of getting him to enroll under the scheme. Yet the Arranging Brethren of his ecclesia refused to withdraw from him, though the brother maintained he was justified in engaging in such activity. These facts were the immediate cause of our own separation from Suffolk Street fellowship over twenty years ago.

In this question of fellowship we come to the real cause of the difference between the two sections. There was willingness to tolerate erring inspiration fifty years ago. So far as the Rules go, any error may be tolerated to-day, even of “vital elements.” The difference is a vital one, and re-union is impossible unless there is a change of attitude in this respect. We do not see how it is possible for the Suffolk Street ecclesias to adopt and apply the rules of the Birmingham Central Ecclesia; and we believe it would be unfaithfulness on the part of the Central ecclesias to adopt the Rules of the Suffolk Street ecclesia.

This view becomes the more evident the further the matter is investigated.

Shortly after the Great War the Suffolk Street ecclesias united with some of the ecclesias which had been separated from us on the question of resurrectional responsibility, and which had been associated with the late brother J. J. Andrew. Is there agreement with us on this question on the part of all now associated with the Suffolk Street ecclesia? Or is not the question an open one with them? For details on this reunion, and on other points of difference between ourselves and the Suffolk Street ecclesias, the reader is referred to a letter, written in March, 1930 by four brethren who left the Suffolk Street fellowship, published in The Christadelphian, 1930, page 182.

Are not other doctrines, such as the immortal resurrection of the saints, and the present possession of the Holy Spirit, open questions in the Suffolk Street fellowship?

In these circumstances we do not approve the objects of this Amity Movement “to propagate diplomatically” the principles of the movement among our brethren and sisters. It would be better openly to acknowledge the differences. If the workers in this movement who are members of the Suffolk Street fellowship recognise the grounds of fellowship as set out in their pamphlet, let them get such grounds acknowledged and acted upon by their fellow members. In the absence of this we cannot for ourselves support the movement. If we can help to remove hindrances we are willing so to do. We think that pointing thus frankly to the greatest obstacle should help. To shut our eyes to it is not an action of wisdom. Under existing conditions attempts at reunion will only promote strife and contention. If the brethren in the Suffolk Street fellowship believe sincerely in their Rules, we must each go our way, avoid unnecessary contention, and leave judgment to the Lord.

The Christadelphian July 1939, John Carter

21, Hendon Road,

Sparkhill,

Birmingham, 11.

Mr. S. P. Clementson,

17, Van Dyck Avenue,

New Malden,

Surrey.

Dear Brother,

I have received a few copies of an 8 pp. pamphlet called “The Young Christadelphians’ Amity Movement.”

“Amity” is friendship. Is their no amity among old Christadelphians? See the case of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12). The young men’s counsel only produced division, as the Lord had determined and proclaimed.

From p. 2 of the pamphlet it appears that you want recognition in fellowship between the divided camps of Christadelphians.

During more than fifty years past I have had to do with many divisions.

So far back as 1866 the late brother R. Roberts was compelled to separate from the “Dowieites,” who tolerated in fellowship those who held the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, an immortal fireproof Devil, and other “strong delusions.” Dr. Thomas, being approached at the time by an “amity” movement entreating him to help stop division, replied that he would do all in his power to help it forward; and the threatened division between Dr. Thomas and brother Roberts was only avoided when the latter firmly and uncompromisingly “avoided” the heresies and the tolerationists who were the cause of the “division and offence contrary to the doctrine which they had learned” of the truth (Rom. 16 : 17, 18).

Then, in 1873, came the Renunciationist controversy on the Sacrifice of Christ, introduced by the late brother Edward Turney and others; the result being more division, and more making manifest of the approved and the others (1 Cor. 11 : 18, 19).

Then, in 1884–5, came the Inspiration Controversy, introduced by the late ex-clergymen, brethren Ashcroft and Chamberlain and others, and resulting in more division, and with similar results.

Then, in 1894, came the Resurrectional Responsibility controversy, introduced by the late brother J. J. Andrew and others, with similar results.

Then, in 1902, came the Clean Flesh heresy, introduced by the late brother John Bell of Sydney and others, with similar results.

Now, what would you have had the two parties do in all these heresies? Recognise each other in fellowship? Impossible! “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” (Amos 3 : 3). Note that this is God’s own rebuke of the “Children of Israel . . . the whole family.”

You preach unity, and declare that there should be no division at all, because, as you say, it is “fundamentally wrong” (p. 4).

In this you are confused, and contradict our Lord himself: “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you Nay; but rather division” (Lu. 12 : 51).

You say (p. 5), “division is, as before, evil, and must be exposed as such. It is a system which must be destroyed. It is the duty of all to help to destroy it.”

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. “Division” is the very antithesis of “system.” There are two religious systems: “The Truth” and “Lies” (Rom. 1 : 25; 2 Thess. 2 : 10–12), and you can no more stop division when these come together, than you can stop effervescence when a solution of an acid comes into a solution of an alkali.

It was so with the Lord himself in Israel. “There was division among the people because of him” (John 7 : 43). See also chs. 9 : 16; 10 : 19 . How could it be otherwise?

It is true that Paul beseeches the Corinthians “that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions (1 Cor. 1 : 10; 11 : 18 , 19; 12 : 25 ). But you know what “some” in Corinth said about the Resurrection (ch. 15); and all these passages must be read together, and harmonized with the apostle’s doctrine and practice throughout the New Testament.

“Say ye not, A confederacy to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy” (Isa. 8 : 11–20).

“If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed; for he that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 10–11).

Both prophet and apostle were thus alike intolerant of wrong doctrine and practice; and this is the right divine precedent. Our Lord himself commends Ephesus for intolerance of evil and evil-doers (Rev. 2 : 2, 3, 6); and rebukes Pergamos for tolerating the doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitanes (verses 14, 15); and Thyatira likewise for “suffering” the Jezebel seductions (verse 20). But he commends “the rest in Thyatira” who would have none of it. As to Sardis; there were but “a few names” there “worthy” to “walk in white” with the Lord (Rev. 3 : 4); while “lukewarm” Laodicea was in danger of utter ejection (verse 16).

On p. 5 you set down “Something of those Involved,” and point out that the Suffolk Street section “comprises 61 ecclesias in England, and many others abroad.” You say that these ecclesias are organised on exactly the same lines as those of the other section, which is not exactly true. And you ask, “Is their 50 years progressive work in the truth to be ignored?”

If numbers were to decide, I might point out that the Central ecclesia section comprises over 200 ecclesias in England and many others abroad; but

“Numbers are no proof that you

Will in the ark be found;”

and salvation is not an ecclesial, but an individual matter. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7 : 21). “Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be which find it” (verse 14). “Many are called, but few chosen” (Matt. 20 : 16; 22 : 14 ). No one wishes to “ignore” anyone’s “progressive work,” but the Lord is the Judge of this, not man; and the time is “the time of the dead,” not now.

It is quite true (p. 5) that there are “evils of division; but who are the sinners in the case? The majority above referred to? No, but the introducers and espousers of the heresies before alluded to. We are exhorted to “mark” and “avoid” these. Surely, you do not want to exhort us to do otherwise.

The present position, though not ideal, is quite tolerable. Those who are not prepared to “mark” and “avoid” heresies and heretics, can find society with the tolerationists; but if they try to bring about “amity” (friendship amounting to recognition in fellowship) between the “avoiders” and the “avoided,” they will only precipitate more “division.”

The thing has been tried over and over again, always with this inevitable result.

If you do not believe this, brother Clementson, file this unpleasant letter, and when your “Young Christadelphians” have become as old as the writer thereof (which I hope they never will in this mortal estate) they will doubtless have discovered for themselves by sad experience the truth of the things therein written.

“Amity” (friendship—Fr. amitié). “Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you” (John 15 : 4).

The foregoing is submitted in all “amity” by

Your brother in the Lord,

Chas. C. Walker.