The Christadelphian October 2009, The Committee of The Christadelphian

“Being a Christadelphian”

A very large number of comments have been received from all round the world (and all ages) following the publication of the magazine committee’s Special Article under the above title in the June issue (page 219). The article has circulated widely, both in its printed form, and electronically, leading to many formal and informal discussions about its content. The main object of the article was to encourage all brothers and sisters to reflect honestly on their spiritual lives and measure them against the commitments that we made when we were baptized – to consider carefully what is involved in being a Christadelphian, a brother or sister of the Lord Jesus Christ.

One or two correspondents have questioned the magazine committee’s role, despite the fact that the article specifically said that it is the responsibility of ecclesias to decide how to respond to the issues that were raised. All that the article sought to do was sound a warning about current trends, which is a responsibility that the scriptures place on each believer. Knowing of the serious trends that exist in many parts of the ecclesial world, it would be wrong to remain silent: “If the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes, and takes any one of them; that man is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand” (Ezekiel 33:6). The magazine committee does not have, nor do its members seek, a superintending role. They remain, however, brothers with a deep concern for the brotherhood and for the truth of God’s word.

What role does the magazine play?

The Christadelphian facilitates the publishing of news and information from ecclesias all round the world, and provides a resource of articles, exhortations and Bible Studies (“Dedicated wholly to the Hope of Israel”) to assist brothers and sisters as they try to live Christlike lives in an increasingly godless world. From its earliest issues, the magazine has commented on matters that affect (or that could affect) the brotherhood. Such matters can arise through changing legislation (particularly with respect to matters of conscience), current events, altered world attitudes towards religious communities, or – as on this and many previous occasions – issues that occur within the brotherhood.

The comment has been received that matters such as those raised in the article should only be addressed directly, as suggested by the Lord in Matthew 18:15-20. But there was no mention of any specific case, and the article clearly showed that those immediately affected by problems should tackle them on the basis of sound scriptural counsel. Others have wondered about the general nature of the comments, asking for more specific details so that the issues can be better understood. Further detail may have revealed actual cases, so an attempt was made to provide sufficient information for anyone to understand the nature of the problems and why they should be of concern to us all, without giving details that could identify any actual cases.

The article indicated various topics where the distinctiveness of our scripturally-based beliefs and practices is under threat in different places around the world, and was intended to act as a warning similar to the one in the Letter to the Hebrews, where the Apostle wrote: “We must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it” (Hebrews 2:1).

To correct misunderstanding

The vast majority of written responses have recognised the value and timeliness of this appeal, and very many correspondents have expressed deep gratitude for the article, and also asked advice about how best to respond within their own ecclesias. Some, however, have wondered if there were other objectives behind its publication than those already noted. It may therefore be helpful to explain what the article was not intended to say.

• It was not a magazine committee statement about reunion discussions anywhere in the world.

• It was not arguing that only the King James Version should be used, or saying that acceptable praise can only be offered by using the Christadelphian Hymn Book, or specifying the style of clothes brothers or sisters should wear.

• It was not saying that ecclesias should never try different methods to make their preaching more effective, or their services more meaningful.

• It was not promoting the idea that fellowship should be more restrictive than is currently the case based on the scriptural first principles summarised in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith.

The reality is that in some quarters there is a desire to make our fellowship less restrictive, to be less distinctive in the message we preach, and to seek common cause with others who claim to follow the Lord Jesus Christ, but who hold beliefs that Christadelphians have always understood to be contrary to sound Bible teaching. At the other end of the spectrum, there is evidence that some are seeking to make our fellowship more restrictive, and to go beyond first principle Bible teachings and include some secondary features as additional tests of fellowship.

Back to the Bible

The article was therefore a call to get back to the Bible and the clear Gospel message it contains; to discover afresh, if need be, its call to separation from worldly ambition and from joining with others if that means compromising the teaching of the scriptures. This call, of course, is double-edged. To someone who wishes to respond to ecumenical invitations, it is a call to examine again the truths about God and His Son and the Hope of Israel. But it is also a call for reassessment to those who are tempted to elevate purely human traditions and to hedge the lives of believers by strict codes of practice that can have the effect of stultifying spiritual growth.

Moves that would have the effect of altering the Christadelphian basis of fellowship lie behind most of the issues briefly described in the Special Article. A reduced emphasis on first principles affects what is preached, and what is considered necessary for candidates to understand and believe if their baptisms are to be valid. A different basis of fellowship produces a changed fellowship boundary – either one that is more relaxed, or one that is more restrictive. The role of the ecclesia tends to be viewed differently. Those who would relax the boundaries of fellowship emphasise an individual’s personal responsibility (and his or her ‘rights’), while those who would argue for a more restricted fellowship are often fearful of allowing the whole ecclesia to become fully involved in its arrangements, placing such matters firmly in the hands of a small group of brothers. In both cases, the scriptural commands about mutual submission tend to be ignored.

Different views about fundamental Bible teaching will be evident in the way we worship. Those who favour wider involvement with others who believe differently from Christadelphians on some first principle teachings are also likely to be attracted to approaches that foster ecumenism or blur the distinct message of the scriptures in important areas. Those who wish to tighten the boundaries of fellowship are more likely to try to specify in increasing detail what should be believed, and what can and cannot be included in our services. The same is true with literature: one group is more likely to be attracted to material written by popular Christian writers with a radically different view of the scriptures, while the other is likely to reject material from almost all non-Christadelphian sources and even list books that it is believed should not be read at all by brothers or sisters.

Extremes beget extremes

An individual’s understanding of Bible teaching will also affect how he or she reacts to new challenges to faith. We live, for example, in a world that increasingly tolerates many different approaches and lifestyles. Anyone moving away from a clear understanding of “the whole counsel of God” will more easily adopt the tolerant thinking of the age. By contrast, anyone who focuses more on never changing what has been done in the past, and on meeting every new challenge with another “thou shalt not”, is in danger of producing answers that are not necessarily supported by the scriptures.

It is apparent that, to a large degree, positions are adopted at the extremes of the brotherhood in response to the perceived position of those at the opposite extreme. Those who wish to relax the demands for fellowship, for example, argue strongly that there are groups in the brotherhood adding more and more restrictions. On the other hand, those who consider being more prescriptive claim that it is needed to arrest the drift away from what Christadelphians have always stood for.

A rope that is being tugged from both ends will be affected all along its full length, and it is apparent that this is what is happening in the brotherhood. The reason for the appeal contained in the Special Article was to encourage all brothers and sisters to stand firmly on the clear teachings of scripture that have served the brotherhood well throughout its history. The article acknowledged that we are living in a changing world that is producing new challenges, but it did not suggest that our response should be to try and turn back the clock. As we often explain to those who are not familiar with the scriptures, the Bible is the book for all seasons, and its message is timeless, suitable for all people in every age.

The Special Article briefly mentioned areas where Christadelphian understanding of the scriptures is being challenged in some quarters. Without identifying actual situations, it is hoped that future articles, God willing, will discuss some of these matters in more detail, explaining the nature of the challenges that face us all, and the scriptural position that should always be our guide.