The Christadelphian March 2010, The Committee of The Christadelphian

“Inter-Ecclesial Responsibilities”

Ecclesias are made up of many different brothers and sisters, all with different capacities and needs, and at different stages on the kingdom road. Therefore the apostle said, “We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves” (Romans 15:1). This is not the place to discuss the characteristics that mark out the strong from the weak, but simply to note the importance given in the word of God to the need for consideration towards fellow disciples. For just as natural families have members of different ages, capabilities and temperaments, so do our spiritual families.

What is true of each separate ecclesia – that it is made up of a number of brothers and sisters with varying strengths and weaknesses – is equally true of the worldwide brotherhood. Ecclesias all have different characteristics, even though they are founded on the same basis of belief in the first principle teachings of the scriptures “about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12). If it is right that there should be mutual consideration within ecclesias for all the members, it follows that there must also be mutual consideration between ecclesias.

Different characteristics

The scriptural analogy of the Christ-body is as applicable to relations between different ecclesias as it is to relations between the various members in an ecclesia. This has been true since the days of the apostles. The first century ecclesia at Berea was known for its desire to search the scriptures daily (Acts 17:11), Philippi for its selfless and abundant generosity and hospitality (2 Corinthians 8:2; Philippians 4:10), Thessalonica for its love towards “all the brethren throughout Macedonia” (1 Thessalonians 4:10). These and many others have their counterparts in the twenty-first century brotherhood, and what binds these otherwise disparate ecclesias together is the common foundation they all share. For they are all “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20). In every place they “call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours” (1 Corinthians 1:2).

The basis of fellowship

The liberty of each ecclesia to organise its arrangements without direct interference from outside has two important qualifications. First, as already indicated in last month’s article (page 42), there must be wholehearted acceptance of the fundamental principles that define the brotherhood’s beliefs and teachings, which for ecclesias in the Central fellowship are summarised in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. Secondly, there must be due consideration shown towards other ecclesias – and indeed to the brotherhood as a whole – so that nothing is done that causes offence.

These conditions are more likely to be fulfilled if there is regular contact between ecclesias – certainly between ecclesias that are close geographically, but also as brothers and sisters travel to other areas and become aware of sensitivities they might not otherwise have known. Problems are more likely to arise between ecclesias if there has been a history of isolationism, or of ignoring how other ecclesias might react.

Inter-ecclesial difficulties can arise from a number of causes. One is when a second ecclesia welcomes a brother or sister from whom another ecclesia has previously withdrawn fellowship. While it is accepted that ecclesias must arrive at their own decisions about individual cases, there are processes that help smooth the path for two ecclesias to resolve any differences between them, and thus reduce tensions so that relations between the two ecclesias are not seriously damaged. When he was discussing this in his helpful booklet, A Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian Ecclesias, Brother Roberts wrote about how to ensure harmonious relations between ecclesias: “The simple law of Christ, to do to others as we would be done by, will greatly help us to take the right and wholesome course” (section 41). The booklet continues by explaining how by meeting together, and sometimes even by joint decision making, differences that could easily cause division can be discussed in a climate that can lead to peace.

Reasonable assurances

Another cause of tension is when an ecclesia gives the impression that our agreed basis of fellowship is not being upheld. Perhaps a member teaches something that seems to contradict one of our first principle beliefs, or enters into a way of life that appears to deny the practical application of those beliefs; perhaps it has been alleged that individuals who are not members of an ecclesia in our fellowship are welcome to break bread, or that some of the ecclesia’s own members are attending other places of worship. While it is the duty of each ecclesia to ensure that it upholds our basis of fellowship in all these situations, other ecclesias can reasonably enquire about issues like those described in order to be reassured that there is a common basis, and that any serious deviations in belief or practice are taken seriously. Indeed, because ecclesias are all part of the body of Christ, there is a duty to provide the necessary reassurances, either by showing that the allegations are false, or by taking action to ensure that the common basis of fellowship will be honourably upheld.

Once again, the “simple law of Christ … will greatly help us to take the right and wholesome course”. Such situations are not helped by an ecclesia refusing to discuss a neighbouring ecclesia’s concerns, or by other ecclesias rushing to judgement without first learning the facts. Following the scriptural precedents from Israel’s history, the brotherhood has always supported the principle of expecting local ecclesias to resolve difficulties that arise in their geographical area (see Deuteronomy 21:1-9). While local investigations are being made, more distant ecclesias – however strongly they may feel about the case – should not get involved. These practical arrangements, established to preserve proper relationships between ecclesias, have stood the test of time.

Early warning signs

While many ecclesias may feel they are kept busy ensuring that their internal arrangements run smoothly, there are serious potential dangers if the wider brotherhood is ignored. Some ‘early warning signs’, if they are heeded, can assist in preventing a situation where a crisis suddenly erupts. The difficulties begin when an ecclesia moves away from the heart of the brotherhood for one reason or another. Sometimes, because of geographical isolation and infrequent contact with other brothers and sisters, an ecclesia can adopt beliefs or practices that differ from those that exist elsewhere. Issues that are treated as uncertain details by other ecclesias can assume such an importance that they start to be treated as first principle topics, and therefore as matters of fellowship.

While there is little that can be done about real geographical isolation, its existence requires that isolated ecclesias should endeavour to maintain contact with the wider ecclesial world. This can be achieved by subscribing to the brotherhood’s magazines, by reading its books, and perhaps best of all by arranging events to which distant brothers and sisters can be invited. There are good examples in different parts of the world of small isolated ecclesias that hold well-attended fraternal weekends or widely supported Bible camps, and they obtain enormous benefit from meeting with brothers and sisters from different parts.

But even if there is no actual geographical isolation, an ecclesia can produce the same effect if it erects a wall around itself through a failure to interact with neighbouring ecclesias or to attend organised inter-ecclesial events in the brotherhood. This situation can occur when the ecclesia has a particularly defined approach to doctrine or practice. It may engage, for example, in a specific form of Bible study which creates a degree of isolation, or it may favour particular modes of worship that are not practised by other local ecclesias. These situations can arise from confusing what are our essential first principle beliefs with long held Christadelphian traditions, or from a failure to appreciate the distinctiveness of our beliefs. These differences can even be sufficient to encourage some brothers and sisters to travel long distances in order to exercise their preferences. When it is felt necessary to bypass many other ecclesias to find the one that suits our particular needs, it suggests that we – and probably also the ecclesia we choose to attend – are in the process of becoming isolated from the brotherhood as a whole.

To remove any possible doubt, this is not an argument in favour of every ecclesia becoming a clone of all the others. We ought to welcome the range of differences that exist, so long as there is full agreement about the scriptural basis that binds ecclesias together. But there should be deep concern when differences become so marked that they prohibit wider fellowship, and in the end create separate groupings of ecclesias so that brothers and sisters start to move in their own circle, and rarely, if ever, come into contact with those involved in a different circle.

The value of periodic reviews

The solution, as already indicated, is for ecclesias to undertake honest evaluations of their position, and to implement measures that will strengthen inter-ecclesial fellowship. Questions to be considered include the following:

• How good are our relations with neighbouring ecclesias?

• How often do members of other ecclesias visit us?

• Do they come from near or far, or both?

• Do the ecclesia’s members attend events arranged by other ecclesias, or by inter-ecclesial committees?

• How often are events arranged jointly with local ecclesias, for study, devotion or preaching?

If it should prove difficult to answer these questions positively, it is perhaps time to consider if there are any steps the ecclesia might reasonably take to become more soundly integrated with the rest of the brotherhood.