The Christadelphian, September 1952

“Jersey City Resolutions”

After the lunch recess the delegates again assembled. Meanwhile the Committee had agreed to a statement to be put to the delegates for consideration as a basis of reunion. The Statement consisted of three items to which were appended Clauses 3–12 of the Statement of Faith and 4, 5, 27 of Doctrines to be rejected. The three items are:

1. That we agree that the doctrines set forth in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith are a true exposition of the first principles of the oracles of God as set forth in the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles, and that therefore these doctrines are to be believed and taught by us without reservation; the doctrine of the Scriptures on sin and its effects and God’s salvation from sin and death in Christ Jesus being defined in clauses three to twelve of the Statement of Faith.

2. 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.

3. 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.

The Christadelphian, September 1952

“The Healing of a Breach 1”

SOME 30 years ago a division began in Buffalo with far reaching effects throughout the Brotherhood. The breach has now been healed in Buffalo on a sound scriptural basis. The majority of the brethren and sisters of the former Berean ecclesia have, from July 5, 1953, merged with the South Buffalo Central ecclesia. Besides this ecclesia, which meets in the Christadelphian Chapel, 23 Glendhu Street, Buffalo, New York, there is another meeting comprising the minority brethren and sisters of the former Berean ecclesia.

When news of bro. John Carter’s intended visit to the United States and Canada was received, and the question of reunion was raised, it seemed like another attempt in a hopeless cause. But after listening to bro. Carter’s address in Buffalo and talking with him, before the Jersey City Conference, it became apparent to one who was open minded that this was by no means a campaign for “peace at any price in the brotherhood”.

At the Jersey City Conference it was firmly and sincerely established that both the Berean and Central fellowships do, as of 1953, now believe one and the same doctrine concerning the “nature and sacrifice of Christ”, and further do now both meet on the Amended Birmingham Statement of Faith without any reservations. This Statement of Faith is the “yardstick” of all true Christadelphian ecclesias today, as has been since the days of bro. Roberts.

This healing of the spiritual breach in Buffalo was possible only by those who viewed the whole matter of reunion from the standpoint, “What do we believe today?” We cannot dig into the past in hopes of solving the questions of today, when many of the brethren who participated in the past controversy are now dead and their voices are stilled. How can they answer for themselves? Many who opposed reunion insisted on digging into the past. They were then persuaded by past prejudices and personalities.

To begin the Buffalo story, let us go back to September, 1952, to the Jersey City Conference, at which both Berean and Central fellowships were well represented. Bro. Carter presided, and did a noble job in stating the Central position and beliefs, and answering questions of the Berean representatives in a most satisfactory manner.

A well-known former Berean, bro. W. M. Biggar, writes that he was sorry at first he had agreed to go because he did not believe the Conference would accomplish anything. But the hand of God moved the hearts of those who sincerely wanted reunion on a scriptural basis, and the effort was successful beyond his dreams, and he was most thankful he had been chosen to go.

It was here that bro. Carter sowed the seeds of brotherly love and pure fellowship, based on sound scriptural fundamentals; God watered the tender plants as they sprang forth in the various ecclesias, and today they have grown into strong, healthy spiritual plants, comprising firm ecclesial groups of happy brethren and sisters in the United States and Canada, enjoying the once lost fellowship in the bonds of love and truth again.

Two brethren were officially appointed to represent the Buffalo Berean ecclesia at this Conference, but unfortunately returned with disheartening reports. But after hearing the tape recordings and corresponding with other delegates, we could see we had been misinformed. From that time on, the Buffalo Berean ecclesia was divided on the question of reunion. It was not our intention to cause a split in this meeting, but it became apparent that this would happen.

This movement was different from any before in that those ecclesias involved more than others in the separation came forward and made public statements of their present beliefs, and these in all cases were based on the Amended Birmingham Statement of Faith.

A decision was on the minutes of the Berean ecclesia to make contact with the South Buffalo Central ecclesia to see if we were in agreement doctrinally. When about three months had passed, it was apparent that those opposing reunion did not wish to take action on this. It was then that the three Buffalo Berean brethren who have signed the Buffalo Statement went to the South Buffalo ecclesia unofficially and caused to be written the Buffalo Statement2, with the help of the Central brethren. This statement has since had a wide circulation and has done much to help other Berean ecclesias to effect reunion in various cities. At a later Berean meeting this Buffalo Statement was officially accepted as being the present belief of the South Buffalo Central ecclesia, thereby making a further committee investigation of that ecclesia’s position unnecessary.

It was here that the Buffalo Berean ecclesia split over the question of reunion, because those brethren and sisters who were in favour of seeing reunion take place in a scriptural manner, were now convinced from all evidence that those opposing reunion would never accept this Buffalo Statement. The majority of the Buffalo Berean brethren and sisters then signed a statement to enlarge their circle of fellowship to include all those who likewise signed the Jersey City Three-Point Statement for Reunion. The minority, however, insisted that they were still the official Berean ecclesia and refused to give up the meeting hall, thereby forcing the majority of the brethren and sisters to obtain a temporary meeting place until July 5, 1953, when the merger with the South Buffalo ecclesia took place officially. Now the Buffalo Central and the majority of the Buffalo Berean ecclesia, as stated previously, have merged into one Buffalo Christadelphian ecclesia. Since this merger in Buffalo, the reunion movement has been continually growing and there have been many more Berean and Central ecclesias in both the U.S. and Canada enlarging their circle of fellowship. The growth of the reunion movement in the U.S. and Canada is something to be joyful over, after these many years of divided fellowship. In unity there is strength. The work of spreading the gospel until Christ returns will progress more than ever before with both of the former fellowships “pulling together”. It is sincerely hoped the few Bereans now remaining outside will realize there is scripturally no barrier to hinder the Berean and Central fellowships from becoming one—just plain Christadelphians once again! However, there are a few Bereans remaining, who, after hearing unlimited testimony to prove that both fellowships are the same in belief and doctrine, still appear to be more anxious to try to prove others wrong than to try to reunite.

Bro. Carl Wolfe, of Pomona, California, writes to the effect that we should at least try to correlate ideas, and try to reconcile statements in the way they are intended, rather than with the idea of picking them to pieces. He also says that with the persistent teaching that bro. Carter has been doing, and with the fine articles he has been publishing, there is a gradual change that is very heartening. Those who still oppose reunion often have too many positive ideas that go past what is written. Let us stay with first principles, and the commandments of Christ that are clear, and be sure of our ground, and not write rules of our own.

Some opponents of reunion would insist that brethren should say today that they are sorry for error taught in the past. We listen to the Master’s words when speaking to the woman taken in the act of adultery. Did Christ ask her to say she was sorry, and this for something she was most guilty of? He said: “Neither do I condemn thee”. The lesson for us today is that of forgiveness and mercy. Christ should be our perfect example today.

Do we still expect our brethren and sisters to come and ask forgiveness—and this for something that they as a body of 1953 are not guilty of? They have plainly stated before many witnesses that they do believe exactly the same today as the Bereans. Since the Conference, a most comprehensive Buffalo Statement has further been formulated to help clear up any questions. What would Christ say in view of the foregoing if he were with us today? I think he may be heard to say, “Come and let us all walk together again in the bonds of love and peace and pure fellowship. Let us take up the work of the Truth together again, after being separated for too many years”.

In the day of judgment soon at hand, some may be found seeking the mercy they are unwilling to show others today in this matter of reunion. What can one expect to receive in the way of mercy in that day, if today one has shown no mercy? There are those who would not accept another brother’s word but would be quite put out by another brother not accepting their word! We are plainly commanded against judging our brother.

The Buffalo Berean (the majority of the former ecclesia) and the Buffalo Central ecclesias have said, “Come and let us walk together again. There is no doctrinal differences existing between us today. Let us take up the work of the Truth in Buffalo and once again work together in spreading the Gospel, for our heavenly Father has at last healed the spiritual breach made many years ago. United, we shall be prepared to meet the Lord at his coming, having exhibited in just a small degree the great love he has first shown unto us”.

Don C. Kling (Buffalo, U.S.A.).

1 This article is more personal than we usually publish; some references have been “blue-pencilled”. We hope that brethren named will not mind bro. Kling’s reference to them. Both bro. W. M. Biggar and bro. Carl Wolfe greatly contributed to the success of the Jersey City Conference. Bro. D. Kling feels that the record of the work in Buffalo should be known as a reason for joy and thankfulness.—(Ed.)

2 A copy of this Statement may be had by writing J. Brewis, 163 Lehn Springs Drive, Williamsville, New York, U.S.A.

‍

The Christadelphian, July 1953

“A. U.S.A. Circular and Reunion”

Several enquiries have been addressed to the Editor concerning a circular sent to Central ecclesias in Great Britain from Newark (U.S.A.) Berean ecclesia. The following answer, written in reply to the first received, is published to save many individual replies:

21 Hendon Road,

Sparkhill,

Birmingham 11.

9th June, 1953.

Dear brother,

Answering your enquiry concerning the circular which has been sent out by the Newark, U.S.A. (Berean) Christadelphian Ecclesia, of which I was quite unaware until I was shown a copy by our assistant recording brother, you will have read the report of the Conference held at Jersey City in The Christadelphian of December last in which it is stated that it was agreed that the resolutions approved by the Conference should be sent to Berean ecclesias in U.S.A., Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia; and to Central ecclesias in U.S.A. and Canada. The Berean ecclesias outside Canada and U.S.A. are few, and they were included so that they should be informed of the steps being taken for reunion by the Berean ecclesias in U.S.A. and Canada. The majority of Berean ecclesias are in U.S.A. and Canada.

We agree with you that these resolutions clearly set out the established attitude of all ecclesias in the Central fellowship and that there seems to be no point in confirming a position which has been recognized for many years. Yet a few comments may be helpful if any have not followed the reports of the reunion effort.

The Newark circular rightly says that all Central ecclesias in U.S.A. and Canada have approved the recommendations of the Jersey City Conference. Already a number of Berean ecclesias have not only approved them, but have resumed fellowship with Central ecclesias.

Contrary to the decision of the Conference, the Newark (U.S.A.) Berean ecclesia have thought it necessary to send out an enquiry asking all the Central ecclesias in Great Britain to say if they approve the Jersey City resolutions, saying that they would be helped immeasurably in deciding what action to take themselves if they knew whether ecclesias in Great Britain are in agreement. On this it might be said (1) that other Berean ecclesias have not thought such action to be necessary; (2) it was not thought necessary at the Conference at which Newark ealesia was represented.

In our judgment the enquiry from Newark is unnecessary; but more than that, it also introduces an undesirable method into inter-ecclesial relationships. This demur is not made because there is a doubt whether the Conference proposals are acceptable to Central ecclesias, for these proposals re-state our position.

The first paragraph of the Jersey City recommendations is a reaffirmation of the Birmingham Statement of Faith as a true exposition of the truths of Scripture as believed among us. Be it noted it is the Birmingham Statement of Faith—the Statement which is in general use in the ecclesias in Great Britain. The second paragraph is almost verbally taken from clauses in the Birmingham Constitution which again is in general use in Great Britain. The third clause is an extension of the principles set out in the second clause, and while not included in the Constitution they have been followed when necessary on more than one occasion by ecclesias in Great Britain.

Concerning the method employed of one ecclesia circularizing all ecclesias abroad, recent history might be briefly reviewed. An effort for reunion of Central and Berean ecclesias in Great Britain took place in 1944. A meeting of Berean representatives decided that the Birmingham Berean ecclesia “be asked to negotiate with the Birmingham (Central) ecclesia of the Central fellowship the terms of a final settlement of the 1923 division, these negotiations to be conducted on behalf of all Berean ecclesias”. The Central ecclesia, Birmingham, agreed to appoint delegates to a meeting with representatives of the Birmingham (Edmund St.) Berean ecclesia, and an agreed report was signed and was afterwards published by the Berean Reunion Committee. The Report, which was drawn up by the Berean brethren, deals with two things: (a) the clean flesh heresy, (b) the constabulary issue in Birmingham. These were the two issues in the division of 1923—but it should be remembered that the “clean flesh” difficulty was confined to America and the constabulary issue was limited to Great Britain. This Report, published in The Christadelphian in Nov., 1947, showed that complete agreement existed on the issues that had divided the ecclesias, and resumption of fellowship was recommended in a final joint statement “in view of the mutual agreement” and “unity of mind and purpose” that had been found to exist.

Although it was thus established that there was identity of views between the two fellowships, the Reunion Effort finally broke down, not because of disagreement on the issues which caused separation in 1923, but because a Berean brother tried to introduce another issue, as reported in The Christadelphian, Aug. and Oct., 1947. As a result of this breakdown, some Berean brethren joined Central ecclesias, some went to Clapham fellowship, and the numbers in the Berean fellowship were thus reduced.

A few further comments might be made. The position on Police service, as defined by resolution in 1917 and the change in the Statement of Faith by the Birmingham ecclesia, was adopted by all Central ecclesias. Then in 1937 all Central ecclesias in Gt. Britain reaffirmed their position concerning service in the Army, Navy, Air or Police Forces.

It will be noticed that the Berean brethren agreed to negotiate with the Central ecclesias through the Berean ecclesia in Birmingham who were to act as the Berean representatives. It is difficult to see how inter-ecclesial discussion can take place other than by representatives. In keeping with this method ecclesias in U.S.A. and Canada were invited to send representatives to Jersey City, and these representatives submitted their recommendations to their ecclesias for approval. The brethren of Central fellowship at Jersey City, while representing their own ecclesias, were collectively representative of Central fellowship. These brethren approved the three resolutions and then all the Central ecclesias in U.S.A. and Canada endorsed them. What other method consistent with mutual trust and good faith is possible? The Berean representatives in Gt. Britain accepted the statements of representatives of the Central brethren, as the Berean representatives accepted the explanations there given by the Central representatives at Jersey City.

The action of Newark (U.S.A.) ecclesia is one that, if generally practised, would lead to considerable difficulties. It is not, in general, a practical method: for if Newark (U.S.A.) must needs canvass all the British ecclesias contrary to the Conference arrangements, why should not one or more British ecclesias canvass the Berean ecclesias in U.S.A. for assurances: and why should not an ecclesia still further extend the method by asking all ecclesias for an individual assurance from every member? Why should not an ecclesia in Great Britain circularize all U.S.A. and Canadian ecclesias, asking them, in view of the fact that they were for some time in fellowship with Clapham ecclesia, which had a policeman in fellowship for some time before and after the division, if they accept the Birmingham Statement of Faith which declares that such service shall not be engaged in? The answer to this question would rightly be given that the issue had not troubled the American ecclesias. Neither has the issue that caused difficulty in U.S.A. troubled British Central ecclesias. Following such a method of canvassing other ecclesias would be destructive of mutual ecclesial trust and confidence and co-operation.

Berean brethren in U.S.A. often said to me when I put the British (Central) ecclesial point of view, that the issues in Britain in 1918–23 did not affect them. Neither, as we have said, did the American issues affect Central ecclesias in Britain. The issues which troubled us in Britain in 1918–23 were discussed and settled by representatives of Central and Berean ecclesias; the Conference discussions and resolutions with the interviews which have taken place since, together with the 100 per cent endorsement of the Conference resolutions by Central ecclesias, have shown clearly the position of Central ecclesias in America, and to all reasonable minds should suffice to settle that issue.

Let me emphasize this last point. In Buffalo three Berean brethren went personally and privately to discuss the position with the Central ecclesia in that city. Buffalo ecclesia has figured prominently in the strifes of the past. The three Berean brethren have issued a detailed report of the discussion, citing the quotations from the Truth’s literature dealing with the doctrines which have been in dispute. They found complete agreement, They testify that Buffalo Central ecclesia is as sound in the faith as any Berean ecclesia. Do we not accept the findings of brethren of integrity, or must we pursue a method of each ecclesia making inquisition before we are satisfied that co-operation is possible?

We repeat, we do not write the above out of any misgiving concerning the position of Central ecclesias in Great Britain. We ourselves co-operated with the committee appointed by the Conference to formulate resolutions. We should not have approved the resolutions if we had not felt sure that ecclesias in Great Britain would be in agreement with the resolutions formulated by both Central and Berean delegates at the Conference, and which, as we have said, all Central ecclesias in U.S.A. and Canada have approved, but not yet all Berean ecclesias. We do, however, think it is necessary to point out both the dangers of the method followed by Newark ecclesia and the apparent lack of confidence in the ecclesias in Central fellowship indicated by it.

It is for each ecclesia in Great Britain to decide their own answer. There is really one answer only, for the resolutions embody the faith and practice of Central ecclesias in Great Britain. One ecclesia has suggested that it should be sufficient that the matter be dealt with centrally.

We would not put a stumbling-block in the way of Newark Berean ecclesia resuming fellowship. Did a stumblingblock exist we would seek to remove it, were it justly possible. We therefore hope that the Newark Berean brethren will put the same confidence in the decisions reached by the Central ecclesias with which they are in immediate contact as they themselves expect from other ecclesias towards their fellowship. The only real alternative appears to be that a decision from every brother and sister in both fellowships must be obtained—a course neither scriptural nor practical.

Sincerely your brother,

John Carter.

The Christadelphian, September 1954

BOSTON. (Seaverns Avenue).—We have been asked to publish the following statement. (Ed.) Since a question has been raised concerning the sincerity of our brethren in their approval of the resolution made by the delegates to the Jersey City, New Jersey, conference of Sept. 20, 1952, we wish to reiterate our original, and only, motion which was made by us on Dec. 8, 1953, and which reads as follows: “Moved: That we approve the resolution made by the Central and Berean Delegates to the convention held in Jersey City, New Jersey, on Sept. 20, 1952, in the light of the explanation of various doctrinal points made by bro. John Carter at that meeting”.

It will be noted that the motion consists of two statements: (1) that we approve the resolution and (2) that we are doing so “in the light of bro. Carter’s explanation of various doctrinal points” involved. The suggestion has been made that this latter statement constitutes a “reservation” on our part, but such an opinion is incorrect since we consider it a truthful interpretation of our position. We feel that the Jersey City resolution was predicated upon the agreement of all parties taking part in the reunion movement to bro. Carter’s clarifying remarks concerning the Statement of Faith. These statements were made by bro. Carter at the specific request of delegates to the conference, who offered no objection to his remarks and, therefore, tacitly agreed to them. Our purpose in making the resolution as we did was, as may readily be seen, to draw a dividing line between past controversies and current mutual agreements, which is strictly in harmony with the minds of the delegates to the conference as verbally expressed before the resolution was drawn, according to a sound-tape recording of the proceedings to which we have listened. For our part, we would be happy if all ecclesias, everywhere, would signify their complete approval of the conclusions reached at the conference, including the resolution, in the same words we have used.

By direction of The Arranging Brethren (June 6, 1954).—(Sd.) Donald W. Sabean (rec. bro.).

The Christadelphian, December 1954

BOSTON (Mass.). 355 Newbury Street.—Since the question has been raised as to the beliefs of our ecclesia the Newbury Street meeting of Boston would like to make this clear statement of their position. We accept the Birmingham Amended Basis of Faith as it is written, without reservations, additions or private interpretation, and have agreed to the three resolutions of the Jersey City Conference. Our understanding of the fifth article of the Statement of Faith has continued to be in accordance with bro. Roberts who wrote, “That death entered the world of mankind by Adam’s disobedience.” “That death came by decree extraneously to the nature bestowed upon Adam in Eden, and was not inherent in him before the sentence. Since that time, death has been a bodily law”. “Death did not come into the world with Adam but by him after he came.” We have likewise agreed with all that bro. John Carter has written on the nature and sacrifice of Christ in The Christadelphian of 1937 (page 552); 1938 (page 127); 1939 (page 228); 1940 (page 564); as well as what he expressed in his talk on the Atonement at Jersey City. On the specific subject in question we would like to quote his written words. “‘The wages of sin is death’, and sin in the beginning brought death into the world of man. If we say death had its hold on the nature of man before Adam sinned, we contradict both the record in Genesis and the Apostolic comments upon that record. We also, and this is where the importance of the matter is seen, undermine the very principles upon which God has operated in the death of His Son . . . If our mortality is in no way a consequence of sin and simply something that belongs to the human organization as created, as some have taught, then the nature of Jesus was likewise unrelated to a mortality which was a consequence of sin”. Nor can we fellowship brethren who teach that there was no change in Adam’s nature, or that the change in Adam was only in relationship to God. We will fellowship only individuals and ecclesias who have these beliefs as outlined in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, and who are willing to take action against any who express the contrary (as agreed to in the Jersey City Resolutions number 2 and 3.) This statement is sent at the request of the Arranging brethren of the Newbury St. Ecclesia of Boston, Massachusetts. Kenneth MacKellar.

[We published in September a statement from the Boston (Seaverns Ave.) ecclesia, and in fairness, now insert the above. May we add a few comments in the hope of being helpful towards harmony. Both Boston ecclesias have endorsed the resolutions of the Jersey City Conference; both approve the Editor’s address given there in exposition of certain clauses of the Statement. Bro. Sabean (rec. bro. of Seaverns Ave. ecclesia) also published the address with a warm endorsement of it, without our knowledge that he was so doing. With that, cannot the discussion cease to let time do its healing work? We think it should be said that there was no intention at the Jersey City Conference that the address given there should be used as a touchstone by which to determine doctrinal integrity. It expressed the speaker’s understanding of the subject and it was approved by all there. We see an element of danger which should be guarded against in a speaker’s words being identified too absolutely with the Statement of Faith. So with other brethren’s writings.

In fact, the subject is one that appears to have its own peculiar pitfalls. Even Dr. Thomas has some sentences not free from difficulties and which appear to conflict with others in the same context. Take these words from Elpis Israel, Chapter II:

“While in the state of good unmixed with evil, were Adam and Eve mortal or immortal? . . . Some hastily reply, they were mortal; that is, if they had not sinned they would nevertheless have died. It is probable they would after a long time, if no further change had been operated upon their nature. But the Tree of Life seems to have been provided, for the purpose of this change being effected, through the eating of its fruit, if they had proved themselves worthy of the favour. The animal nature will sooner or later dissolve. It was not constituted so as to continue in life for ever, independent of any further modification. We may admit, therefore, the corruptibility, and consequent mortality, of their nature, without saying that they were mortal. The inherent tendency of their nature to death would have been arrested; and they would have been changed as . . . they of whom Paul says, ‘We shall not all die’. The ‘we’ here indicated, possess an animal, and therefore corruptible nature; and, if not ‘changed’ would surely die: but inasmuch as they are to be ‘changed in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet’, though corruptible, they are not mortal. In this sense, therefore, I say, that in their novitiate Adam and his betrothed had a nature capable of corruption, but were not subject to death, or mortal. The penalty was ‘dying thou shalt die’; that is, ‘You shall not be permitted to eat of the Tree of Life in arrest of dissolution; but the inherent tendency of your animal nature shall take its course, and return you to the dust whence you originally came’. Mortality was in disobedience as the wages of sin, and not a necessity.”

Now compare these words from the next paragraph:

“But, if they were not mortal in their novitiate, it is also true that they were not immortal . . . The truth is in few words, man was created with a nature endued with certain susceptibilities. He was capable of death; and capable of endless life; but, whether he should merge into mortality; or, by a physical change be clothed with immortality, was predicated on his choosing to do good or evil. . . . In the Paradise of Eden, mortality and immortality were set before the man and his companion. They were external to them. They were to avoid the former, and seek after the latter, by obedience to the law of God.”

For ourselves we think his statement in the Summary of First Principles, Ch. V, to be excellent and with a right emphasis: “Man’s defilement was first a matter of conscience; and then corporeal. For this cause, his purification is first a cleansing of his understanding, sentiments, and affections; and afterwards, the perfecting of his body by spiritualizing it at the resurrection”.

To every speaker and writer the words apply: “Prove all things”, and the oracles of God are the court of appeal. “The wages of sin is death.” “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned.” “Sin hath reigned unto death.” But “Grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ.” “Who shall deliver me from this body of death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Subscribing to these clear statements of Scripture; eschewing extreme statements on either side; and seeking to avoid going beyond what is written, should provide a solution of these contentions.—(Editor.)