The Christadelphian April 1988, Michael Ashton

“Visit to Australian Ecclesias of the Editor of The Christadelphian February 15-23 1988”

Australian Fellowship Discussions

Advance notice was given (February, page 67) of the Editor’s visit to Australia at the invitation of Ecclesias in Adelaide. The purpose of the visit was to discover some of the factors which have prohibited the development of harmonious relationships between ecclesias in Australia.

Major meetings were held in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. Tape recordings of the addresses delivered in all these locations have been made available and are being advertised in Australia. It is intended that some copies will also be available from the Christadelphian Office. Additionally some of the subjects addressed in these talks will form the substance of articles to be published in coming months.

The following letter to our brethren and sisters in Australia is a report of the visit and a summary of the impressions received and the advice which was given. It is also being published concurrently in Australia in the April issues of The Australian Christadelphian Shield and Logos magazines.

Brethren and sisters in Australia are to be encouraged in the difficult and sensitive task which confronts them; and that, motivated only by the mind of Christ, they may endeavour to remove unnecessary barriers without in any way reducing the standard of belief, devotion and worship for which we are privileged to strive. Because we are a worldwide brotherhood this is not a challenge which faces only those in Australia. The prayers of brethren and sisters everywhere should be directed to a Godly and honourable resolution of these difficulties.

Dear Brethren and Sisters,

Loving Greetings in Israel’s Hope

Visit to Australian Ecclesias of the Editor of The Christadelphian

February 15-23 1988

Thirty years ago Brother John Carter, a former Editor of The Christadelphian, was invited to Australia to render assistance in framing the basis upon which reunion between Shield and Central Ecclesias was achieved. The good work which Brother Carter was blessed to be able to perform has been respected by all who have enjoyed the fruits of his labours.

Consequently, during the ensuing period the Unity agreement itself has rarely been challenged, but unhappily the perfect accord and true fellowship which might have been expected have been enjoyed only in a few parts of the country. Over the years two major groups of ecclesias (not identifiable with the fellowships which were reunited) have been formed in most of the states. Association between the groups has been minimal and at times an unChristlike spirit has been evident between them. It is neither our intention, nor our desire to allocate blame, and not a great deal of benefit can be gained from a minute analysis of the past. In any case many members of each group have come into the community from without, or are too young fully to relate to the past.

Nevertheless, it is now commonly admitted that within the last two decades, each group has hardened into a polarised position. This originally arose from a disagreement on how to address doctrinal problems. Subsequently, reactions from both groups have often been based upon what is perceived to be the stand of the other group rather than from a fully considered assessment of how Christadelphian Ecclesias should operate. Attempts have been made to justify separation on non-fundamental issues, or on differences of organisation or procedure, even though the ecclesias concerned remain technically on the same basis of fellowship. Relationships have frequently become so strained that many brethren and sisters have felt it better to operate only within a like-minded group of ecclesias than to risk the heartache and tension which can result from almost constant friction.

Recognition of this position, and the realisation that it is not what true fellowship demands of us, has recently caused brethren within both groups to examine how the situation might be rectified. This has required considerable heart searching and courage, but where it has been undertaken brethren have discovered more unanimity than they ever expected.

It was as a result of some of these discussions, primarily in Adelaide, that an invitation from ecclesias aligned to both groups was extended to me, as the present successor to Brother Carter, to visit various centres in Australia to help in seeing what possibility there may be for greater cooperation between Ecclesias and to set forth the basis of fellowship which applies amongst Christadelphian Ecclesias worldwide. Brother Tennant, the chairman of the Christadelphian Magazine and Publishing Association, who was already in New Zealand at the time, was also included in the invitation. There was some natural reluctance in one or two areas about something arranged so quickly. This meant that not all ecclesias were represented at some of the meetings.

During a period of only eight days, four major cities were visited (Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne) and the opportunity was provided to speak to brethren and committees representing many ecclesias in both groups. These talks, which were frank and open, were vastly encouraging. We were struck by the obvious desire to remove if at all possible any remaining barriers to full fellowship, and by the willingness to identify and eradicate past errors.

In Queensland in particular, doctrinal errors on the nature of man and of the Lord Jesus Christ have for many years been the cause of great concern and breach of relationship. Some brethren have propounded an unacceptable doctrine of the nature of Christ, suggesting that it did not contain the proneness to sin common to all men. Other brethren, in countering these views, have suggested that in his work the Lord Jesus had to atone for his nature. Despite this background, we discovered that some Ecclesias in Queensland are moving to a position where they are determined to uphold all of the provisions of the Unity agreement and, in a brotherly way, to implement its fellowship clauses. Importantly, discussions on doctrinal matters between members of the two groups had already commenced long before there was any suggestion of our visit. Every encouragement is needed in this resolve to put their own houses and relationships in order. Here, as elsewhere in the country, it was apparent that local difficulties have often been exacerbated by a slowness or unpreparedness to deal with them. This has resulted in the involvement of brethren or ecclesias from long distances, which would otherwise have been unnecessary.

It was necessary in all the centres which we visited to draw the attention of the brethren to the Scriptural procedures for ecclesial and inter-ecclesial problem solving which, are set out in Brother Roberts’ Ecclesial Guide. These procedures operate elsewhere in the Brotherhood and have proved invaluable time and again in resolving otherwise intractable problems. In substance many parts of The Guide already appear in Ecclesial constitutions and specific clauses are referred to in the Unity agreement. Failure to implement these either in spirit or letter has been the cause of much of the difficulty which exists where whole groups of Ecclesias maintain they are “out of fellowship” with other Ecclesias, even though both groups remain in fellowship with other Ecclesias elsewhere in the world.

In each of the cities we visited formal meetings were also arranged for the benefit of brethren representing all the ecclesias in the local area. The purpose of the meetings was to emphasise the basis of fellowship which was prepared in 1958, to explain those provisions which have become subject to some distortion during the intervening years, and to expound various clauses in the Statement of Faith showing how they are understood by the worldwide brotherhood.

There is a serious irony in the fact that the different groups claim assent to the same Unity agreement, but have no real unity in practice. The saddest fact of all is that the doctrinal problems which have existed concern the central doctrine of the gospel of truth—the Atonement. It is a paradox that there should be division over a doctrine which concerns reconciliation.

Extreme views on the implementation and import of the Unity agreement have not assisted the cause of unity. Some brethren have wished to apply it too rigidly, others have wished to reduce its intended impact. For example, it has been insisted that the Statement of Faith is “only a man made document” and therefore is flexible in the doctrines to be accepted. Another view is that the agreement demands acceptance of every word in the Statement of Faith “without reservation”. Both of these attitudes are wrong.

It is not correct to speak of the Statement of Faith disparagingly as merely a “man made document”. It is not a correct definition anyway because it has been framed by brethren, but the attitude displays a serious misunderstanding of the summary of the Scriptural teachings which has bound together brethren throughout the world. However, some brethren have gone so far as to suggest that the Unity agreement (which of course incorporates the Statement of Faith used by Christadelphians throughout the world) specifically allowed two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement to be acceptable in fellowship. It is difficult to see how this understanding could have arisen. Furthermore, we believe this view seriously challenges the integrity of the brethren who were responsible for drafting and negotiating the Reunion agreement. It is impossible to read the transcripts of the addresses given throughout Australia by Brother Carter when these subjects were under discussion and believe that he would be party to framing an agreement which would allow another doctrine in fellowship. Significantly, two of these addresses are printed in the Unity booklet itself, thus showing the importance of this exposition in the process of reunion which took place in 1958.

The Unity agreement also correctly states that it is the doctrines in the Scriptures of truth which are to be received and taught “without reservation”. These doctrines are those epitomised in the Statement of Faith and thus a framework of truth is provided on which baptismal interviews and fellowship discussions can be based. Australia has already provided a clear example of the fact that these doctrines can be adequately and helpfully expressed in different words. One of the significant factors in achieving agreement to the Unity basis in 1958 was the concise explanation of Clauses 5 & 12 of the Statement of Faith which is now known (after the brethren who drafted it) as the Cooper-Carter addendum.

During our meetings it was shown how accurate in its definitions is each clause of the Statement of Faith, and how closely the clauses are interlinked, becoming dependant on each other in a remarkable way. The brethren were encouraged to re-examine this basis which confirms the doctrinal position upheld by our community since the days of our earliest brethren, and particular emphasis was placed on Clauses 4–12 which set out the crucially important teaching on the Atonement.

In addition the Scriptures relating to the Statement of Faith were also expounded to show how accurately the Statement of Faith summarises the true teaching concerning the nature of man, of the Lord Jesus Christ and his sacrifice, and the unique wonder and importance of his begettal (i.e. his conception by the power of the Holy Spirit). It is to be deplored that, by pressing certain teachings on these exalted subjects—teachings which cannot be supported by Scripture, the faith of the average brother and sister has been disturbed or confused. We know that one thing which the Lord deplores is sowing “discord between brethren”, and we should examine ourselves closely lest it be true of us.

In summary, the following is the advice which was given to the brethren in the various centres we visited:

1. Ecclesias should faithfully uphold the Unity agreement and be able and willing to show to anyone enquiring that they have done so.

2. Local issues should always be dealt with promptly and thoroughly by the Ecclesias concerned. Delay both increases the problem and sows the seed of further trouble. Only when matters have not been so resolved should brethren from other ecclesias become involved, and in all these discussions the Scriptural provisions of The Ecclesial Guide should faithfully be followed by all parties.

3. The Statement of Faith is the basis of our fellowship within and between Ecclesias, it should be honoured and upheld so as to unite brethren, not to divide them.

4. Nothing should be applied as a test of fellowship between Ecclesias which is an addition to the Statement of Faith and the Unity agreement. Ecclesias should not elevate their own way of doing things in such a way that it can become divisive.

5. Ecclesias should not group together in any way which can become divisive. Reference to an Ecclesia as belonging to “Shield” or “Logos” can perpetuate an unhealthy division, not necessarily based on doctrinal differences, which would be detrimental to the general good of the Brotherhood in Australia.

Naturally perhaps, brethren and sisters from both groups have expressed unease that, as a result of the current moves to greater unity, their present situation may be threatened in some way. Generally speaking nobody welcomes change and most will attempt to resist the possibility of change by defending, sometimes vociferously, the status quo. Nothing, however, should be feared from the present discussions if in both personal and ecclesial lives the truth is being upheld, and closer links with other brethren and sisters are being sought only on the same basis of truth. There is no doubt that we should all be more keenly aware of the insidious attacks upon our faith and practice from the world in which perforce we all must live. Our defence against these attacks can only come from more carefully cultivating the mind of Christ, so that in all our ways we shall show forth our citizenship of the kingdom which we pray will shortly be established. As our inner man more closely conforms to the pattern of the character of our Lord, this should be reflected in measure by the outward man, so that the world’s debased habits of entertainment, fashion and behaviour should be shunned.

On the last evening of our visit, together with the brethren who had accompanied us on our trip, we returned to Adelaide “whence we had been recommended to the grace of God” (Acts 14:26). Scripture is silent about how many brethren gathered in Antioch to hear the report of the visit of Paul and Barnabas to establish ecclesias in Asia Minor, but in Adelaide over one thousand brethren and sisters met together to hear the encouraging reports of the desire in many areas to work for closer unity of fellowship. It is probably fifteen years since there has been such a meeting in Adelaide drawing for its attendance on all the Ecclesias in the city and the surrounding area. That it was possible on this occasion to unite together in praise and thankfulness was an encouraging indication of what can be achieved if the principles of fellowship which were set forth in the various centres we visited can be applied honourably and in a brotherly fashion.

It is to this task that we now lovingly commend every brother and sister. Only so much can be done by formal meetings, or by visiting brethren. If we are to be truly a united brotherhood when our Lord returns, the involvement of every brother and sister is essential. It is a time to put past hurts behind us and together to “press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus”. To this end we “commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).

Sincerely your brother in the Lord Jesus Christ,

Michael Ashton

Editor