Website Article

“The Fellowship Clauses in the Australian Unity Agreement”

The Fellowship clauses in the Australian Unity Agreement put the primary responsibility on each ecclesia to deal with any departure from any element of the One Faith that may arise in its midst.

“(a) Where any brethren depart from any element of the One Faith, either in doctrine or practice, they shall be dealt with according to the Apostolic precept and that extreme action would be ecclesial disfellowship of the offender. (Matt. 18: 15-17; Titus 3: 10-11.)” (Unity Book p14).

In the event of the offending brethren being unrepentant, “extreme action would be ecclesial disfellowship of the offender.” This is in keeping with The Ecclesial Guide 32. Sin and Withdrawal and 36. Individual Offences, which is referred to in clause (c) of the Fellowship clauses in the Unity Book.

“(c) The course of action necessitated by the above clauses (a) and (b), will be regulated by the principles of the Scripture and follow the spirit of the Ecclesial Guide, Sections 32, 41 and 42.” (Unity Book p15)

The terms of the Unity Agreement is that each ecclesia is to faithfully fulfil its responsibilities to preserve the Truth on its part. Ecclesias have a responsibility to other ecclesias to do this so there will be no error in the fellowship group. Where an ecclesia fails to fulfil its responsibilities in this regard and tolerates error in fellowship, it has failed in its responsibility to other ecclesias by compromising the basis of fellowship and breaking the Unity Agreement.

It is therefore not right or faithful for an ecclesia to wilfully tolerate “departure from any element of the One Faith either in doctrine or practice” and not withdraw fellowship from brethren in error after efforts to recover them in the spirit of Matt 18 have failed. 

Bro Cooper and bro Carter made this expectation quite clear as a condition for reunion, in their letter on unity to the Adelaide Conference in 1956.

“Here perhaps we may be permitted to speak plainly. In our efforts to seek unity and peace in Great Britain brethren abroad have reminded us in various ways of the problems that exist in other lands where there are extensions of the troubles here, aggravated by their own local differences. The citations of utterances such as that the Statement of Faith contains blasphemous assertions, by brethren in Australia who are still retained in association, create great difficulties for us. If we have a duty to avoid putting any stumbling block in your path, is not the duty reciprocal and should not you seek to remove grave hindrances to unity, either by so instructing your members that you can happily declare there is oneness of Faith, or by removing from your association, sad though it may be to have to do it, the teacher of error. “Purge out the old leaven” is apostolic counsel.” …

“We take, then, this opportunity to ask your co-operation in the pursuit of peace and unity of those of like mind. If the Lord could hold against a first century ecclesia that they held a doctrine which he hated, or suffered those who held such a doctrine, we see how seriously he views some things. Surely none of us would adopt a position where He would have to say it of us. As, therefore, we hear reports of vocal protagonists of things which are not believed amongst us, making also stout charges against things we do believe, might we ask you to help us either by removing those brethren who make discord and division by their words, or by showing (after enquiry) that the charges made against them are not true. We feel sure that by so doing you will greatly help the cause of truth throughout the world and the work of peace in ecclesias of your land and of ours.” (Unity Book p8, "A Letter on Unity from England")

Bro Carter had also made the same condition for reunion clear in The Christadelphian magazine of the same year.

“For fifty years there have been two groups of ecclesias in Australia. The division arose out of the teaching of the first Editor of The Shield, and the name of the magazine has been used to define the group of ecclesias. …

But the Shield brethren can help. Most of them meet on the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. The Victoria agreement bases fellowship on the acceptance of the truths therein set out, and the refusal of fellowship to any who do not. Those ecclesias, both Shield and Central, who have subscribed to the Victoria basis, are in a position where they must seek, as their own agreement in fact requires, to clarify the position with regard to those Shield ecclesias against which the charges of holding wrong doctrine are made. If the charges are correct, then the Shield ecclesias have a duty to set matters right. If the charges are not correct then let the fact be established. That there is need for something to be done we believe many Shield brethren recognize. The Editor of The Shield has virtually called for it. If there are one or two perverse men whose voices create discord and make division, then the Scriptures tell us what our duty is (Rom. 16:17, 18). A splendid opportunity is before the Shield ecclesias to remove stumbling blocks; a fine opportunity is before the Central ecclesias to meet such action by a willing response.” (The Christadelphian, May 1956)

Retaining brethren in association with the error of Shield Clean Flesh was a cause of great difficulty to reunion and the expectation was ecclesias would either reform or remove them.

The fellowship clauses in the Unity Agreement do not specifically sanction the wilful toleration in fellowship by any ecclesia of “departure from any element of the One Faith either in doctrine or practice” including Shield Clean Flesh. Clauses (a) and (b) are clear that ecclesias have a responsibility to other ecclesias to preserve the Truth on their part.

Yet the wording of fellowship clause (b) only specifies withdrawal from an ecclesia that “sets itself out by design to preach and propagate at large, false doctrine”.

(b) If it is established that an ecclesia sets itself out by design to preach and propagate at large, false doctrine, then it would become necessary to dissociate from such an ecclesia.” (Unity Book p14-15).

Clauses (a) and (b) only define two scenarios. The scenario of an ecclesia faithfully preserving the Truth on its part, and the scenario of an ecclesia that is wilfully and persistently preaching error. Clause (b) is strangely silent on the scenario where an ecclesia is in breach of clauses (a) and (c) by tolerating brethren with error in fellowship but requires them not to promulgate their error.

While this scenario is not specifically sanctioned as being allowed in fellowship, it is also not specifically precluded from fellowship. The absence of any specific preclusion of this scenario means that in Australia the established practice is not to withdraw from such an ecclesia because it is not regarded as setting itself out by design to preach and propagate at large false doctrine.

It is difficult to reconcile this contradiction between the Fellowship Clauses (a) and (c) with clause (b) of the Australian Unity Agreement, as well as its contradiction with the historical Central position on Fellowship and its practice outside of Australia.

The wording of this clause bears similarity with the wording of bro Cooper and bro Carter in their letter on unity to the Adelaide Conference in 1956, only two years before the reunion.

“We have an ecclesial responsibility to the Lord, in Adelaide, in Melbourne, in Sydney, or in any other place. And that responsibility is ours in our own ecclesia. We must have the right of judging the position of our members, with their weaknesses and idiosyncrasies and in doubtful cases each ecclesia must decide. While this belongs to us (and we should see that none takes it from us) we have a duty to other ecclesias. While an individual ecclesia, we are also a part of the One Ecclesia—the Church, and our duty to other ecclesias is to preserve on our part the Truth and let the light shine unobscured by vain speculations. But the converse is sadly true—if an ecclesia willfully and persistently preaches error, how can we avoid responsibility except by disclaiming association? If this principle has on occasion been pressed too far, we must not therefore fail to give it its proper place.” (Unity Book p8, "A Letter on Unity from England")

This letter only presents the two scenarios that are also in clauses (a) and (b) in the Unity Agreement. An ecclesia is either faithfully preserving the Truth on its part, or it is wilfully and persistently preaching error. The scenario is not envisaged where an ecclesia tolerates brethren with error in fellowship but requires those brethren not to promulgate their error.

The scenario of an ecclesia that wilfully and persistently tolerates error in fellowship remaining in the fellowship group is certainly inconsistent with the historical Central position on fellowship that had been maintained for over 100 years. It is inconsistent with the statements by bro John Carter in the years leading up to the reunion in 1958. He certainly did not agree with an ecclesia retaining brethren with error in fellowship on the condition that they not promulgate their error.

"If a brother departing from an element of the faith retains membership, either he accepts an imposed silence which is doubtfully justifiable; or, there is diversity of teaching. Since, however, all members of an ecclesia are preachers of the word, diversity would seem to be inevitable. But the apostle enjoins that all speak the same things that there be no division among the brethren (1 Cor. 1:10)." (The Christadelphian, March 1948)

It could be argued that an ecclesia that wilfully and persistently retains in fellowship a brother "departing from any element of the faith" has adopted a position of supporting false doctrine by not acting on it faithfully and is effectively “preaching and propagating” it by allowing its influence to remain, even if they require such members not to promulgate their false doctrine. However, this is not the way clause (b) is understood and applied in Australia.

The Central Position on Not Tolerating Error in Fellowship

The historic Central position from the time of bro Roberts never allowed for an ecclesia to remain in fellowship if it wilfully and persistently tolerated in fellowship those who depart from any element of the One Faith in doctrine or practice, even if they do not promulgate their error. Ecclesias have a responsibility to each other to uphold the Truth as a basis of union among themselves, and while ecclesias are autonomous this is not a licence to wilfully and persistently tolerate error.

Bro Carter was clear on this in the previous reunions in America in 1940 and 1952 that he had been involved in.

"We believe the Statement of Faith to be the best compiled to set out the teaching of the Scriptures. We accept it without reservation and believe it sets forth the minimum that should be believed as a basis of fellowship. As concerning The Christadelphian and fellowship, we have declared that we do not knowingly publish Intelligence from ecclesias who do not accept the teaching set out in the Statement of Faith. We believe that if a man or woman changes their belief it is the honourable course to say so, and resign from fellowship. It is not less so when ecclesias do not subscribe to the doctrines which are commonly believed among us, and which are accepted as the basis upon which fellowship and co-operation can be maintained.

... It is a duty to withhold fellowship when error is taught; it is a duty to extend fellowship when “all speak one thing”. (The Christadelphian, December 1940, John Carter)

The wording of the Jersey City Resolutions in 1952, only six years before the reunion, has some similarity of wording to clause (b) of the Fellowship Clauses in the Unity Agreement.

“That we recognize as brethren and welcome to our fellowship all who have been immersed by whomsoever after their acceptance of the same doctrines and precepts, and that any brother departing from any element of the One Faith as defined in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith is to be dealt with according to apostolic precept.

If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching false doctrines, or to retain in fellowship those who do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming fellowship.” (Jersey City Resolutions)

The wording of the Jersey City Resolutions is very similar to bro Carter’s explanation of the historical Central fellowship position in 1945, thirteen years before the reunion.

"If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching wrong doctrine, or in retaining in fellowship those who so do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming association. In matters of doubt, where it is a question of judgment of fact, ecclesial decisions must be respected, as the Guide and the Constitution provide. But when there is grave error in doctrine or practice, an ecclesia has the duty of loyalty to the Truth, and it is recognized among us that by the Truth is meant the definition of doctrine in the Statement of Faith. If an ecclesia fail in such loyalty, other ecclesias cannot co-operate without complicity. Harmony in essentials has ceased to exist, and behind a facade of union there is really disunity. Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth; when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience.

… a practical protest by refusing to fellowship is the full extent of permitted action. The command to “enquire” is not at variance with New Testament injunction; it is in harmony with it. When, therefore, it is reported that any brother or ecclesia is following false doctrine, it is not only permitted, but it is obligatory on other brethren and ecclesias, to “enquire and make search, and ask diligently,” to see whether it be true and the thing certain. If it is, the responsibility of their position leaves no option but that of repudiating complicity with the evil." (The Christadelphian, July 1945).

Bro Carter consistently maintained this Central position on fellowship from the time of bro Roberts in the years leading up to the reunion in Australia. Only eight years before the reunion in 1950 bro Carter wrote;

“In the Inspiration controversy of 1885 the real issue was whether the doctrine of erring inspiration should be tolerated. It is clear from the discussions in The Christadelphian of that period that those who introduced the doctrine of partial inspiration had supporters of their view, while others (probably the majority) who themselves did not subscribe to it were yet willing to tolerate it. The basic difference of view therefore which caused division concerned fellowship: should those who taught error on such a vitally important subject, remain in fellowship? In this connection bro. Roberts wrote:

“A man himself believing the truth but willing to wink at its denial among those in fellowship in any of its essential elements, becomes, by this willingness an offender against the law of Christ, which requires the faithful maintenance of the whole. Faithful servants of Christ cannot unite with such, on the ground that though he hold the truth himself, such a man is responsible for the error of those whom he would admit, and therefore becomes the channel of a similar responsibility to those who may endorse him in fellowship: ‘He that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds’. It is the duty of the friends of the truth to uphold it as a basis of union among themselves by refusing to receive either those who deny any part of it, or those who would receive those so denying.”

If men refuse to separate when that is a clear duty they become themselves offenders.” (The Christadelphian, December 1950)

In this article, bro Carter refers back to bro Roberts in “The Nature and Conditions of Fellowship” (The Christadelphian, September 1885) which sets out the Central position on Fellowship at the time of the first major division over the Partial Inspiration of the Bible. He quotes points 8 and 9, but points 4 to 7 give the context of the basis of fellowship.

“4. That the first condition of association is the belief of the truth, apart from the perception and reception of which, there is no basis of fellowship.

5. That the truth forming this basis is made up of a number of items or elements, that are each essential to its integrity as a whole.

6. That it is a matter of duty to require the recognition of these at the hands of those claiming association with us in the truth.

7. That we are not at liberty to receive any one who denies or refuses to believe any of them, because the receiving of such would open the way for the currency of their principles among us, with the tendency of leavening the whole community. The elements of the truth are so mutually related that the displacement of one undermines the foundation of the whole.

8. A man himself believing the truth, but willing to wink at its denial among those in fellowship in any of its essential elements, becomes, by this willingness, an offender against the law of Christ, which requires the faithful maintenance of the whole. Faithful servants of Christ cannot unite with such, on the ground that though he hold the truth himself, such a man is responsible for the error of those whom he would admit, and therefore becomes the channel of a similar responsibility to those who may endorse him in fellowship:“He that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

9. That it is the duty of the friends of the truth to uphold it as a basis of union among themselves by refusing to receive either those who deny any part of it, or those who would receive those so denying.”

Only five years before the reunion in 1952 bro Carter wrote;

“Ecclesias are autonomous, and it is a principle to be jealously guarded that ecclesias manage their own affairs. But that does not mean that an ecclesia can tolerate or eschew any belief or conduct without regard to other ecclesias. Individuals have free wills, but that does not mean they can do as they wish. To live in society imposes limitations, and when a man joins any society there inevitably follow restrictions on personal freedom. In city life the pedestrian has the security of appointed street crossings only by accepting the restriction that he shall cross when the “lights” permit, and the motorist limits his freedom and honours the restriction to “stop”. On a moorland path a solitary walker moves as he will, but restraints are inevitable in social life. It is not less so in ecclesial life.

The basis of fellowship is the common acceptance of certain beliefs which are called “The Truth” or “The Faith”; but these beliefs need definition to ensure that understanding is sufficiently uniform. Hence we must have a Statement of Faith; and while it would be within the province of each ecclesia to draw up its own, it is obvious that some brethren have greater skill than others in formulating a doctrine. There is something to be said for a uniform statement, widely accepted, even on the grounds of the efficient formulation of the things believed. There may, too, be circumstances when a well-recognized Statement may be used as a touchstone to establish that two ecclesias hold identical views, particularly when there has been recognized divergence on the part of one ecclesia or even doubt about its position. The use of a Statement in this way implies no exaltation of a Statement above the Scriptures, but a wise use of it as an instrument for a special purpose.

It is sometimes said in support of an unregulated freedom for every individual ecclesia that the Lord dealt with the faults and virtues of each in his letters to the churches. This is true, but it is sometimes overlooked that the seven letters were sent as one document to all the churches, and not as separate letters to each church, and each contained the counsel that “if a man have ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”. The letter to Smyrna, while dealing with Smyrna’s affairs, had lessons for the other six; and so with each letter. While there was individual responsibility on the part of each ecclesia, this was a collective responsibility of its members (“if any man have ears to hear”); and the individual ecclesia was not without some relationship to the ecclesias as a whole (“hear what the Spirit saith to the churches”).” (The Christadelphian, Oct 1953)

Only two years before the reunion bro Carter wrote;

“If he cannot accept the first principles of doctrine agreed upon, he cannot expect to retain his membership. The same principles hold good as between ecclesias. As a community we have encouraged the idea of ecclesial autonomy; rightly so, we believe. A central governing body would destroy the responsibility which individuals and ecclesias sustain to God. At the same time, like most ideas, it can be pressed too far. Ecclesias have certain mutual responsibilities as parts of the “body” of Christ.” (The Christadelphian, October 1956)

The worldwide Central position on fellowship did not change with the Australian Unity Agreement. The wilful and persistent toleration of error in fellowship was no more acceptable to ecclesias throughout the world than it was before the reunion. At no time did other ecclesias throughout the world agree to change their position to accommodate Australian ecclesias that wilfully and persistently tolerated error in fellowship even if they required brethren not to promulgate their error.

For example, in New Zealand where no ecclesias adopted the Australian Unity Agreement, many still retain The Three Welington Resolutions in their constitutions which reflect the historical Central position on Fellowship since the time of bro Roberts.

These were adopted by all New Zealand ecclesias in 1919 as a basis for re-union on account of the Shield Clean Flesh error emanating from Sydney. The Shield Clean Flesh error is specifically repudiated as error in clause 3, and clauses 1 and 2 outline the Central position on fellowship, to not receive in fellowship those who believe it or those who tolerate it in fellowship.

“Wellington.—Victoria Hall, Adelaide Road.—... As a movement has been on foot amongst us for some time for a re-union of the ecclesias at present divided on account of the error emanating from Sydney, we considered that we could best serve the interest of the truth by setting forth a statement of our position, which we have done in the form of three propositions. Only upon the acceptance of these can we receive into fellowship those who have previously accepted the Clean Flesh Heresy, either by active support, or have received in fellowship those who have supported it.

(1) We accept the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith as our basis of fellowship, believing and endorsing all the doctrines therein set forth, also we repudiate any belief in the “Doctrines to be Rejected” appended thereto.

(2) We refuse to fellowship any who, while accepting the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, have in their fellowship, those who deny any of the truths therein set forth, or receive in fellowship those that deny any of these truths.

(3) We repudiate the doctrine known as the Clean Flesh Theory (i.e., that he “Jesus, was by nature, Holy, Harmless, Undefiled, and separate from sinners. He was ‘undefiled in every sense’”). We believe that Jesus was in the days of his flesh of the selfsame nature as we are, a nature which is of its very constitution at enmity with God, a nature defiled as the result of the transgression of our first parents. That He overcame this nature with all its desires and weaknesses, and thereby overcame the Diabolos, thus setting us an example which we are asked to follow.—T. H. Rosser, Rec.” (Intelligence, The Christadelphian, February 1919)

The New Zealand ecclesias did not change their basis of fellowship, or agree to fellowship Australian brothers and sisters who believe in, or tolerate in fellowship the Shield Clean Flesh error.

The Ecclesial Guide

The historical Central position on fellowship is embodied in The Ecclesial Guide, which is referred to in clause (c) of the Fellowship Clauses of the Australian Unity Agreement.

“(c) The course of action necessitated by the above clauses (a) and (b), will be regulated by the principles of the Scripture and follow the spirit of the Ecclesial Guide, Sections 32, 41 and 42.” (Unity Book p15)

The Ecclesial Guide does not support the concept of tolerating error in fellowship by an ecclesia which is clear from 32. Sin and Withdrawal and 36. Individual Offences, The Ecclesial Guide. Ecclesias have a responsibility to faithfully preserve the Truth on their part.

The Ecclesial Guide supports the historical and consistent Central position that an ecclesia that wilfully persists in retaining in fellowship those with false doctrine should be dissociated from. It states that the bond of union between ecclesias is the one faith and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is clear that if differences concerning this bond of union arise between ecclesias they should be dealt with on the same principles as individual offences against the Truth as outlined in 36. Individual Offences and 32. Sin and Withdrawal.

“42. Ecclesias in Relation One to Another … The bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is nothing less than a calamity when rupture on secondary issues sets in, where these other conditions of union exist.”

“37. Ecclesial Differences … These are different from individual offences, and yet they stand nearly related to these, and are best dealt with by the same general rule that Christ lays down for them.” (Ecclesial Guide)

This is the historical and consistent Central position based on Scripture that bro Carter outlined in The Christadelphian of 1945, only 13 years before the Australian reunion.

"If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching wrong doctrine, or in retaining in fellowship those who so do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming association. In matters of doubt, where it is a question of judgment of fact, ecclesial decisions must be respected, as the Guide and the Constitution provide. But when there is grave error in doctrine or practice, an ecclesia has the duty of loyalty to the Truth, and it is recognized among us that by the Truth is meant the definition of doctrine in the Statement of Faith. If an ecclesia fail in such loyalty, other ecclesias cannot co-operate without complicity. Harmony in essentials has ceased to exist, and behind a facade of union there is really disunity. Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth; when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience. 

The spirit in Peter writing of Israel says, “But there were false prophets also among the people even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them” (2 Pet. 2 : 1). How were such false prophets to be treated? Moses says they “shall be put to death” (Deut. 13: 5). Even a “brother,” “son,” “daughter,” “wife,” or “friend,” who attempted to introduce idolatry was not to be spared (v. 6 to 11). The object was that Israel might be purged of evil. Communities were to be dealt with on the same principle as individuals. If it were reported that any one city had commenced to “serve other gods” (v. 12, 13) “then,” said Moses, “shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you, thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein” (v. 14, 15).

The comparison drawn in Peter’s epistle between false teachers in fleshly Israel and spiritual Israel is evidence that this Mosaic enactment contains a lesson for us. The use of sword or anything destructive is out of the question; a practical protest by refusing to fellowship is the full extent of permitted action. The command to “enquire” is not at variance with New Testament injunction; it is in harmony with it. When, therefore, it is reported that any brother or ecclesia is following false doctrine, it is not only permitted, but it is obligatory on other brethren and ecclesias, to “enquire and make search, and ask diligently,” to see whether it be true and the thing certain. If it is, the responsibility of their position leaves no option but that of repudiating complicity with the evil." (The Christadelphian July 1945)

Block Disfellowship

Withdrawal of fellowship from an ecclesia under these circumstances is very different to "Block Disfellowship", as bro Alfred Nicholls points out in The Christadelphian September 1982. He defines “Block Disfellowship” as when “a group of brethren or ecclesias has withdrawn from another ecclesia over what is in their opinion some error of doctrine or more usually of practice and then withdrawn from all other ecclesias who do not support that judgement, on the ground that the latter are involved in the sin of the first ecclesia.”

"To put the matter in perspective" bro Alfred Nicholls cites bro John Carter from 1945 above in support of this in (The Christadelphian September 1982)

"In the above article Brother Whittaker has drawn attention to the question of withdrawal from ecclesias. It has happened more than once that a group of brethren or ecclesias has withdrawn from another ecclesia over what is in their opinion some error of doctrine or more usually of practice and then withdrawn from all other ecclesias who do not support that judgement, on the ground that the latter are involved in the sin of the first ecclesia. This is sometimes known as “block disfellowship” and clearly has no sanction in Scripture.

However, sometimes the circumstances are such as to challenge the judgement of other ecclesias and require their decision. To put the matter in perspective we offer the following extract from an Editorial Note on “Inter-Ecclesial Responsibility” (The Christadelphian, July 1945): “… ecclesias have a duty to make rules regulating their procedure in harmony with the principles of ecclesial life laid down by the apostles. And ecclesias are related to each other as members of the body of Christ. While the Lord rebuked each of the seven Churches for its faults, he added to each of the letters to the Churches that he that hath an ear should hear what he said, for what he said was intended for all to hear. The rebuke of one was a warning to all to avoid the evil rebuked. If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching wrong doctrine, or in retaining in fellowship those who do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming association. In matters of doubt, where it is a question of judgment of fact, ecclesial decisions must be respected, as the Guide and the Constitution provide. But when there is grave error in doctrine or practice, an ecclesia has a duty of loyalty to the Truth, and it is recognised among us that by the Truth is meant the definition of doctrine in the Statement of Faith. If an ecclesia fail in such loyalty, other ecclesias cannot co-operate without complicity. Harmony in essentials has ceased to exist, and behind a facade of union there is really disunity. Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth: when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience.” (The Christadelphian September 1982)

Differences in a Judgment of Fact

The Fellowship Clauses of the Australian Unity Agreement also refer to sections 41 and 42 of the Ecclesial Guide.

“(c) The course of action necessitated by the above clauses (a) and (b), will be regulated by the principles of the Scripture and follow the spirit of the Ecclesial Guide, Sections 32, 41 and 42.” (Unity Book p15)

The Ecclesial Guide "42 Ecclesias in Relation One to Another" states

"The bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is nothing less than a calamity when rupture on secondary issues sets in, where these other conditions of union exist. It is not only calamitous, but sinful somewhere…

"Are the two ecclesias that are agreed in the basis of fellowship to fall out because they are of a different judgement on a question of fact? This would be a lamentable result—a mistaken course every way. They have each exercised their prerogative of independent judgement: let each abide by its own decision, without interfering with each other. The one can fellowship a certain brother, the other cannot.”

If two ecclesias who are agreed on the basis of fellowship and the principles involved in a particular case, disagree over the facts and circumstances of the case or how the principles should be applied in the case, then each ecclesia should abide by its own decision without disrupting fellowship between them. The one can fellowship the brother or sister concerned, the other cannot.

Fellowship between ecclesias who agreed on the same principles of doctrine and conduct as their basis of fellowship should not be disrupted by a difference in judgement of the facts, and how the principles should be applied in a particular case.

This does not apply to differences in what the fundamental principles of doctrine and conduct are that form the basis of fellowship. Unity and fellowship is based on agreement on the essentials of doctrine and conduct that form the basis of fellowship. Any difference in these essential principles is not covered by section 42 of the Ecclesial Guide.

Bro Carter drew this distinction between differences in essential doctrine and differences in judgment on a question of fact.

“If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching wrong doctrine, or in retaining in fellowship those who so do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming association. In matters of doubt, where it is a question of judgment of fact, ecclesial decisions must be respected, as the Guide and the Constitution provide. But when there is grave error in doctrine or practice, an ecclesia has the duty of loyalty to the Truth, and it is recognized among us that by the Truth is meant the definition of doctrine in the Statement of Faith. If an ecclesia fail in such loyalty, other ecclesias cannot co-operate without complicity. Harmony in essentials has ceased to exist, and behind a facade of union there is really disunity. Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth; when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience.” (The Christadelphian July 1945).

He clearly stated the “wise provisions” of the Ecclesial Guide and the Constitution in this balance of ecclesial independence restricted to a recognition of the same essential doctrine and conduct as a basis of fellowship between eccleias.

“Well, clearly there is a real difference of judgment, and for each ecclesia then the majority decision must hold. But it should not divide the two ecclesias since they are agreed on principle but differ in the application of the principle to a particular case.

These issues are carefully weighed in The Ecclesial Guide—a booklet which all Arranging Brethren should possess. It is full of sound scriptural guidance for ecclesial life, and is an elaboration of the reasons for the Clauses of the Constitution which bro. Roberts helped to frame, which relate to this matter.

These wise provisions of the Constitution, based on the principles bro. Roberts explains, apply and can only apply where there is agreement on principle: they presume there is agreement on principle and are only operative where such agreement exists.

The first clause provides independence; the other is restrictive—restrictive to a recognition of the same principles by all ecclesias.

The above comments arise from a review of Clauses 34 and 35 of the Constitution and of Clauses 41 and 42 of The Ecclesial Guide.” (The Christadelphian, October 1953)

A Difference in Judgment of Fact vs A Difference in Essential Doctrine

Unfortunately, there are brethren and ecclesias who misuse section 42 of The Ecclesial Guide to justify tolerating the Shield Clean Flesh error in fellowship. They claim that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement, and they do not consider that the Shield Clean Flesh view is a difference in essential doctrine that is a condition of fellowship.

The implications of this with the latest resurgence of Theistic Evolution are obvious because it shares some common foundation beliefs with Shield Clean Flesh. This becomes evident with some brethren and ecclesias maintaining that brethren can hold views contrary to any one or more of the following four points and still conscientiously and validly assent to the Unity Agreement.

1. Adam's nature was mortal and biased to sin (like current humans) before the fall;

2. There was no change in Adam's nature as a consequence of his transgression;

3. Contemporary evolved humans were coexisting with Adam and Eve at creation, and

4. Not all humans have descended from Adam

The first two beliefs above are serious doctrinal errors of the Clean Flesh teachings of Bro John Bell that caused the division between Central and Shield ecclesias in 1904. The last two beliefs are specific to Theistic Evolution but all four beliefs conflict with the essential doctrines that form our basis of fellowship.

The only way it can be maintained that brethren can hold views contrary to any one or more of these four points and still conscientiously and validly assent to the Unity Agreement, is by maintaining that the Unity Agreement accommodates these points. In other words, that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement in fellowship to include the Shield Clean Flesh view.

Because these brethren claim that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement, they therefore maintain that any difference of views on these four points is merely a difference in judgment on a question of fact as to whether a brother holding these views can conscientiously and validly assent to the Unity Agreement, so therefore section 42 of The Ecclesial Guide should govern the matter.. 

This is clearly a misapplication of section 42 of The Ecclesial Guide because any difference in judgment of fact in what constitutes essential doctrine, is in reality a difference in what constitutes the very essential doctrines of the One Faith that form the basis of fellowship under the Unity Agreement. This is not a difference in judgment on a question of facts where there is agreement on the essential doctrines of the One Faith, as stipulated in section 42 of the Ecclesial Guide, but a serious difference in what the essential doctrines of the One Faith are that form the basis of fellowship.

This means that brethren and ecclesias who claim that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement effectively operate on a different basis of fellowship to the majority of Central ecclesias in Australia who only accept the historical Central view on the Atonement as defined in the B.A.S.F. understood in harmony with the C.C.A.

The Shield Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell are generally recognised as error in essential doctrine, but these brethren regard them as included in the essential doctrines of the B.A.S.F. when understood in harmony with the C.C.A. It is important to note that the definition of essential doctrine in the B.A.S.F. did not change when understood in harmony with the C.C.A. to allow another doctrine on the Atonement in fellowship.

The C.C.A. was submitted by bro Carter and bro Cooper as an explanation of what they believed clauses 5-12 of the B.A.S.F. meant. In clarifying the meaning of clauses 5-12 on the Atonement in the B.A.S.F. they did not change what had always historically been considered in the Central fellowship as the essential doctrines on the Atonement defined in the B.A.S.F. They made this clear in a letter they sent to the Adelaide Conference in 1956 about the C.C.A. as an explanation of the meaning of clauses 5-12 of the B.A.S.F. as a definition of essential doctrine.

“What are the essentials of saving truth? We have generally recognised that these essentials are formulated in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. Not that other Statements may not also give a true outline but the Birmingham Statement is the one most widely known. It is recognised by all in what we call the Central Fellowship and in the recent discussions in Great Britain it has been acknowledged by both Central and Suffolk Street groups of ecclesias as the one to which all could subscribe as setting out the First Principles of the One Faith. A Statement of Faith is essential for any community of believers to define their beliefs to ensure harmonious working together and consistent testimony to those without. …

It is the duty of all to seek to promote unity. We must avoid the things that make for disunity, contentions and strifes of words. Unity is a unity of faith, however, and that involves agreement on essentials. …

If we have a duty to avoid putting any stumbling block in your path, is not the duty reciprocal and should not you seek to remove grave hindrances to unity, either by so instructing your members that you can happily declare there is oneness of Faith, or by removing from your association, sad though it may be to have to do it, the teacher of error. “Purge out the old leaven” is apostolic counsel. …

When it is necessary in the interests of definition of a disputed item of doctrine, sound, simple, clear language should be sought and the basic principles set forth. For example, Clauses 5 and 12 of the Statement have been much discussed and we are afraid the doctrines therein set out disputed. We attach an attempt to state in simple, straight language what we think those clauses mean. In addition, an address on these clauses was given at the Jersey City (U.S.A.) Conference four years ago by the request of the delegates, to set out the understanding of the Editor of The Christadelphian on the subject. We understand that the recordings of this address have reached Australia and have been listened to by some among you.” (Unity Book p8. The Christadelphian, July 1956)

To avoid any misunderstanding of the meaning that bro Carter and bro Cooper intended by the C.C.A. as an explanation of clauses 5-12 of the B.A.S.F., its intended meaning was elaborated on in “an address on these clauses” that was given by bro John Carter at the Jersey City Conference in 1952 “to set out the understanding of the Editor of The Christadelphian on the subject”.

The meaning of what bro Carter and bro Cooper intended by the C.C.A. as an explanation of clauses 5-12 of the B.A.S.F. is also amply elaborated on in the five articles in the Unity Book referencing the Atonement written by bro John Carter. These articles are consistent with all the other writings of bro Carter on the Atonement that upheld the historical Central view on the Atonement, which are solidly based on the views of Bro Roberts. Bro Carter and bro Cooper certainly did not include the Shield Clean Flesh doctrine on the Atonement as part of the essential doctrines defined in their explanation of clauses 5-12 of the B.A.S.F. in the C.C.A.

“We mention this because it has already been said that we now advocate what is described as “clean flesh”. This is not true. Neither is it true that in opposing these theories of alienation we have changed our view. We studied the arguments by writers on both sides very carefully forty years ago: we saw then that bro. Roberts’ position was the scriptural one.” (The Christadelphian, August 1958)

The only application section 42 of The Ecclesial Guide has to those who maintain that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement in fellowship, is that the “reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord” is not the “bond of union” between ecclesias.

Brethren and ecclesias who maintain that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement attempt to avoid scrutiny by demanding that their assent to the Unity Agreement be accepted at face value without question, using vague wording for the basis of fellowship at joint events, such as “fellowship is extended on the basis of the Unity Agreement without addition or further explanation”.

This makes such an assent to the Unity Agreement hollow and meaningless. This is not an assent to the same basis of fellowship based on unity of essential doctrine and conduct, but to a different basis of fellowship that allows another erroneous view on the Atonement in fellowship. This is union without unity.

To maintain a position that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement is itself a breach of the Unity Agreement in clause (a) under General Beliefs and clauses (a) and (c) of the Fellowship clauses. Only the historical Central view on the Atonement is acceptable in fellowship which is the scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F. The Unity Agreement precludes the Shield Clean Flesh view on the Atonement being retained in fellowship because it is an opposing view that is erroneous.