The Christadelphian June 1939, John Carter

“Amity on Sound Lines and Not on Sound Lines”

Amity on Sound Lines

We have received from the Petersham Ecclesia, Sydney, a letter under date March 27th, 1939, which is reproduced practically at length below. A similar letter was sent to the Arranging Brethren of the Birmingham Central Ecclesia.

A statement had been prepared before this letter was received, setting forth the attitude of The Christadelphian on the Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ, which was printed in the May issue, pages 228–230. As this statement covers the ground on which doubt had arisen, we are confident the letter from the Arranging Brethren, endorsing the position therein set forth, will give the assurance asked by the Petersham ecclesia. We publish with pleasure these letters, and shall welcome the resumption of Intelligence from Petersham and their full co-operation in the bonds of the gospel.

“The Petersham Christadelphian Ecclesia,

Sydney.

March 27th, 1939.

“Dear brother Carter,

“Greetings in our Master’s Name.

“We have read with interest and appreciation your ‘contribution to healing a breach,’ which follows the notice concerning the death of brother A. D. Strickler, in the February issue of The Christadelphian.

“As former members of the ecclesia at Albert Hall, 413 Elizabeth St., Sydney, many of us experienced, in 1904, the division caused by brother J. Bell and others who advocated doctrines similar to those held by Edward Turney on the Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ.

“Being thus acquainted with the erroneous doctrine, we readilyperceived in brother Strickler’s book ‘Out of Darkness into Light’ that to his mind, Christadelphians were in darkness on that particular subject. Although his language was ambiguous and contradictory, it was quite apparent to us, as you now state ‘he did not accept without reserve some of the Clauses in the Statement of Faith.’

“Our ecclesia at Albert Hall was undivided concerning the doctrine, but the question was, what should we do? After several years of dissension, a resolution was carried by a very small majority, to the effect that the Birmingham ecclesia and all ecclesias in fellowship therewith, be withdrawn from. While not agreeing with the policy, as we understood it, of the Birmingham ecclesia, we could not endorse such a drastic and far-reaching resolution, so there was no alternative but to form another ecclesia at the above address. This took place in October, 1929. Our position in relation to ecclesias outside Australia, was decided on as follows:—

“‘Recognising that the unsettled state of the ecclesias is world-wide, and as a guidance to members of our ecclesia visiting other ecclesias outside the Commonwealth of Australia, we recommend that before fellowshipping any such ecclesia our members shall make diligent enquiry at same in order that they be not compromised in any doubtful association with false doctrine and practice (including the erroneous teachings of brother A. D. Strickler on the Nature and Sacrifice of Christ). For we are commended to “try the spirits” and also to give a “reason for the hope that is in us” with meekness and fear.’

“Our fellowship is with the Freemasons’ Hall ecclesia, Melbourne, and Empire Chambers ecclesia, Brisbane.

“As you state, ‘The attitude of The Christadelphian we have declared.’ Is that also the position of the Birmingham Central ecclesia? An assurance to that effect from your Recording Brother will remove a difficulty of long standing and greatly contribute to healing a breach and bringing about reconciliation on sound lines.

“In the event of the difficulties being removed, we would like to send ‘Intelligence’ as of old. Perhaps you may consider the substance of the foregoing will be suitable for insertion, as an explanation of our position in striving to ‘keep the Faith.’

“On behalf of the Arranging Brethren,

Your brother in our Master’s Service,

E. J. Hawkins,

Recorder.”

The following is the reply of the Arranging Brethren of the Central Ecclesia, Birmingham:—

“18th May, 1939.

“Dear brother Hawkins,

“Your letters to our Arranging Brethren and to brother J. Carter were read at the meeting of the Arranging Brethren of this Ecclesia on Wednesday, May 10th, and I am instructed to reply that we welcome your letter and the opportunity it brings of healing the breach that has arisen so far as your ecclesia is concerned.

“It is the considered judgment of our Arranging Brethren that the truth, on the points in doubt, is set forth in the Statement in the May issue of The Christadelphian, page 228–230, in regard to doctrine and fellowship.

“With this assurance that the Statement of Faith and Constitution expresses our belief and practice, we hope you will be able to indicate your complete agreement with us.

“With greetings,

Faithfully your brother,

G. T. Fryer,

Rec. Bro.”

Amity Not on Sound Lines

We regret the necessity for publishing further reports on the meetings held in connection with the Young Christadelphians’ Amity Movement. We do so because we believe the interests of the Truth are best served by so doing. If the right conditions existed, we should welcome the effort to remedy the disunion that exists, and should be willing to do all in our power to further the effort being made. But satisfactory conditions do not exist.

If, instead of treating the differences between the two fellowships as of no importance, an effort was made to bring the ecclesias in the Suffolk Street fellowship into line with our position, we should rejoice in the prospect of a possible re-union. The present methods and aims will not achieve it.

Brother R. A. Overton of Rugby, who attended a recent meeting in Birmingham and took part in the discussion, writes:—

“Dear brother Carter,

“I have been requested to send to you the wording of my question at the recent ‘Amity Movement’ meeting in Birmingham, which brought out clearly the attitude of the Suffolk Street brethren towards those in their fellowship who held certain erroneous doctrines.

“I was also requested to write my impressions of the meeting.

“I took extensive notes as brother L. C. Jennings, of Suffolk Street, gave his address. He said that he stood for a ‘free table.’ His meeting is open to receive a member of any section of the Brotherhood. Regarding the theory of ‘Immortal Emergence’ and the ‘Responsibility Question,’ at present the Suffolk Street Ecclesias see no reason to change their attitude to these matters. After reading the pamphlet ‘The Resurrection of the Saints’ he did not feel inclined to accept the views expressed, and even now he would not feel inclined to give an opinion either way. ‘It does not appear to be fundamental.’

“He raised the following questions: Why do not the Suffolk Street Ecclesias treat the Immortal Emergence theory as a fundamental? and why do not the Suffolk Street Ecclesias disfellowship those who adhere to this theory?

“‘It is quite possible, we openly admit,’ said brother Jennings, ‘that there are some (Suffolk Street brethren) who hold the Immortal Emergence Theory. To be charitable and loving to a brother who believes in these so-called heresies is the proper course to follow, and the one the Suffolk Street Ecclesias follow.—What else can we do?’

He then indicated that all a brother has to do, if he believes in some error, is to keep the erroneous idea to himself—not to propagate his private views, and then he may remain in the Suffolk Street fellowship.

“After various speakers had expressed their views, and Brother Ford had made our position in these matters clear, I asked the Chairman if he would be willing to ask the Suffolk Street brethren and sisters present to vote on a question I would like to raise in order that I might be perfectly certain of their views. It was important that there should be nothing indefinite nor uncertain about their attitude to my question, and only a vote would indicate the true position.

“My question was: ‘Do the Suffolk Street brethren and sisters present endorse the remarks of brother L. C. Jennings uttered to-night?’

“A number of hands were raised, showing those who did endorse the remarks in question, and when the chairman said it would be necessary to ask those among the Suffolk Street members present who disagreed with Brother Jennings’ remarks to show their hands, not a single hand was raised to show disagreement.

“I then said: ‘Then he is not alone in this matter, and his views represent the attitude generally accepted by the Suffolk Street Ecclesia as a whole.’

“This indication of the generally accepted attitude to error among the Suffolk Street Ecclesia was most important, as now there would be no need to assert on our part that some in their fellowship held erroneous beliefs and were not treated as the Scriptures indicated and instructed us to deal with them.

“Brother Jennings had made a clear admission that error was tolerated by the Suffolk Street Ecclesia, and had asked the question ‘What else can we do?’

“By calling the attention of the audience to the Scriptures, I indicated there need be no uncertainty, and after reading 2 John, verses 9 and 10, Jude, verse 3, Titus 3, verses 10–11, I appealed to all present, in view of the nearness of the coming of Christ, to tighten the reins, and strengthen the things which remain.

Sincerely your brother,

R. Alan Overton.”

Brother H. Madeley of Coventry also writes:—

‘Dear brother Carter,

“Along with several other brethren, I attended the Amity Movement meeting which was held in the Lecture Theatre of the Midland Institute, Birmingham.

“It was with quite an open mind that I attended, inclined to be sympathetic with their endeavours. Everyone, we think, would welcome unity between the varying sections of Christadelphians, if union could be established upon a scripturally-sound basis.

“I came away convinced unity could never be established without sacrificing principle. The main speech of the evening—that by brother L. C. Jennings of Suffolk Street Ecclesia—was devoted to a justification of the tolerance of laxity in doctrine. Here are a few of his statements:—

“‘Suffolk Street fellowship is open to receive any member of any Christadelphian community from whatever section they come.’

“Again: ‘I would not care to give a definite answer upon “Immortal Emergence,” to me it does not appear to be fundamental. I was never taught it. . . . Suffolk Street do not withdraw from anyone believing that doctrine. “Immortal Emergence” is not taught or preached by us; those holding this view are asked not to ventilate it.”

“He thought the Temperance Hall fellowship gave this doctrine undue prominence.

“Regarding the ‘Responsibility’ question, brother Jennings said this was ‘less worthy of consideration than the other.’ He said: ‘I am not concerned with who is going to be condemned, but with who is going to be saved.’ That sounds all right, but how he can consider the one class apart from the other he did not tell us.

“I came away with the feeling that the ‘Movement’ was wrongly named and that ‘The Laxity Movement’ would be a truer definition of its aims. It can only result in one of two alternatives, either its adherents will go over to Suffolk Street fellowship and ‘tolerance of error,’ or another Section of Christadelphians will be created, which for want of a better name we will call ‘The Tolerationists.’

“The intention appears to be very commendable, but the opposite of ‘Amity’ will result unless they stress the need for a sound scriptural basis.”

We have letters from brother F. G. Ford and brother Yockney which space does not allow us to use.