“Letter from the Adelaide Ecclesias re Clean Flesh Concerns in Queensland 1971”

Dear Brother/Sister ...............

This letter has been sent with the endorsement of the Ecclesias here undersigned. Together, they represent nearly 600 Brothers and Sisters who watch with anxious hearts the developing crisis that threatens to split our community. None of them want this, and everything is being done to avert that catastrophe, this letter being one attempt in this direction. However, recent statements and publications emanating in the main from Queensland make it obvious that we can no longer delay in taking action against those in error and those who support them.

We write with a deep sense of urgency and anxiety and because of this ask that you give it your earnest attention. It concerns Ecclesial matters of the greatest importance that have affected and will affect the Brotherhood of Christ in this country. We refer to the current problems surrounding the fundamental doctrine of Atonement.

It is our earnest conviction that a stand must be made for the Truth before it is too late. We realize that such a stand will unfortunately cause unpleasantness, but we firmly believe that further delay will see an extension of the erroneous teaching which will erode away our community.

Painful as it may be, unless we face this problem firmly we stand to lose far more than if we accept our responsibilities and act immediately.

Toleration of error may relieve the burdens for the present, but it will only increase our tasks later, as in the interim false teachers will continue their pernicious work under the protection of those who refuse to discipline them in accordance with the terms of our Unity agreement. Unfortunately those who call for action to stem the flow of wrong doctrine are often accused of fostering division when in fact they are only anxious to bring to an end the real cause of disunity, that is false teaching. “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself”.

I Tim. 6:3 - 5

However, in combating false doctrine we are very much aware of you all, knowing that some of you are involved in the Ecclesias mentioned later in this letter or have been affected by these teachings through personal contact with those propounding these false teachings.

To one and all we appeal at this time to hear us out, and we in turn are prepared to give earnest and sincere consideration to any matter that you wish to place before us. Our object in this letter is to make contact with as many as possible to aquaint them with our reasons for concern, to overcome any differences that may exist, and to solicit your help in preserving the doctrinal purity that has joined together a people known as “the Christadelphians”.

 Because our Ecclesias have stood against false teachers it is alleged that we bear animosity towards all those in connection with them, we implore you to accept our word that this is not so. Many Brethren have contributed to this letter in an effort to reach into your homes, and we hope, into your hearts. Furthermore it has been by the insistence of our members that those Brethren who have compiled this letter, should do so in all haste, for the express purpose of establishing contact with you with the minimum of delay.

 In all controversies it is difficult to sort out motives and here again it has been alleged that we are making “Political moves” to divide the Ecclesias into two camps. Truly there are things of a non-fundamental nature upon which there is difference of opinion, which has resulted (needlessly we feel) in animosity. But now we have the Fundamentals of our Faith being undermined and in this crisis we urge that all faithful Christadelphians unite in a determined effort to provide a positive answer to our Lord’s question.........”shall I find the Faith in the earth”. Luke 18.8.

 We do not ask that everyone agree with all of our opinions except those that affect our Statement of Faith, and the moral obligations that it implies.

 There exists in our brotherhood a theory of the Atonement astray from the B.A.S.F. understood in harmony with the Cooper Carter Addendum. So divergent is this theory that the Purpose of God in Christ is denied and the doctrine of Atonement made of none effect. The issues are vital and are not merely strife about words. Words make up ideas and our doctrines are ideas. The ideas - Biblical doctrines - are being challenged. It therefore becomes the responsibility of those who love the Truth, our heritage so dearly won by the pioneers, to uphold its purity. Where the basis of Fellowship is not accepted there can be no fraternity or “brotherhood”. Patient and genuine attempts have been made to instruct and reclaim those in error.

 There is abundant evidence, which can be documented, that the situation exists in Queensland in which there are the seeds of division, and which must be immediately corrected before it precipitates the disaster we are so anxious to avoid.

Consider closely the following facts:

1. Bro. H. Twine has departed from the one Faith and has in word and pen spread his teaching into certain Ecclesias and amongst Brethren Sisters in isolation in Queensland.

2. Certain Brethren have come out in support of Bro. Twine, thereby demonstrating that the false teachings have spread farther afield.

3. The Caloundra Ecclesia has openly stated its beliefs to be contrary to the B.A.S.F. and has asked for a return to the “Shield Fellowship” with the Cooper/Carter Addendum being accepted as effectively nullifying clauses 5 & 12 of the B.A.S.F.

4. The Petrie Terrace Ecclesia although claiming to meet on the basis of Unity accepted in 1958, challenges the concept of the doctrine of Atonement as always believed by Christadelphians. Furthermore in the face of irrefutable evidence they continue to fellowship Bro. Twine, knowing that by so doing they give cause for grave concern to the Australian Brotherhood.

5.It is openly alleged that the Basis of unity as set out in the Unity Booklet was especially drawn up for Australian conditions with a view to allowing TWO opposing ideas on the Nature and Sacrifice of Christ to exist together in ONE fellowship.

Dear Brethren and Sisters does this not give cause for the serious concern now felt by us all? In the face of this how can we stand by and do nothing. What we have set out above is not a figment of our imagination, or something falsely stated to simply cause controversy, but has been conveyed to us by word of mouth, in article, and by Ecclesial correspondence.

For the sake of the Truth we all love, we must act now.

In order to illustrate the serious nature of the departure from sound doctrine we set out below the contrast between truth and error, the errors in question are those now circulating among Ecclesias in Queensland.

Our attention will be upon matters where differences lies namely

(1) The Effects of Adam’s sin.

(2) Christ’s Nature and what his death accomplished.

The Atonement is a doctrine with many facets which will be dealt with in a pure comprehensive fashion in a future publication.

THE TEACHING OF THE B.A.S.F. - REGARDING THE ATONEMENT.

Clause 5 “Adam broke this law and was adjudged unworthy of immortality, and sentenced to return to the dust of the grounds from whence he was taken - a sentence which defiled and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity.”

Clause 8 “ - Jesus Christ, was to be raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, and who, though wearing their condemned nature was to obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience, and, by dying, abrogate the law of condemnation for himself, and all who should believe and obey him”.

Clause 9 "That it was this mission that necessitated the miraculous begettal of Christ of a human mother, enabling him to bear our condemnation, and at the same time, to be a sinless bearer thereof, and, therefore, one who could rise after suffering the death required by the righteousness of God”.

Clause 10 “Jesus ----- was, during his natural life, of like nature with mortal man, being made of a woman ---- and therefore a sufferer in the days of his flesh, from all the effects that came by Adam’s transgression, including death that came upon all men, which he shared by partaking of their   physical nature.”

Clause 12 “---- He (God) had determined to be done viz., the condemnation of sin in the flesh, through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all, as a propitiation to declare the righteousness of God as a basis for the remission of sins. — — —

Clauses 5 & 12 are to be understood in harmony with the Cooper Carter Addendum.

(1) IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTS OF ADAM’S SIN THE ADDENDUM SAYS

“ he was sentenced to return to the dust. He fell from his very good estate, and suffered the consequences of sin — shame, a defiled conscience and mortality. As his descendants we partake of that mortality that came by sin, and inherit a nature prone to sin. By our own actions we become sinners ------”

IN RELATION TO CHRIST’S NATURE AND WHAT HIS DEATH ACCOMPLISHED.

“though Son of God, He partook of the same nature - the same flesh and blood as all of us but did no sin. In his death he voluntarily declared God’s righteousness; God was honoured, and the flesh shown by divine appointment rightly related to death ---- and in submitting to it (baptism) we identify ourselves with the principles established in   the death of Jesus, Who died unto sin — — — —“.

TEACHING OF THE ERRORISTS.

(1) IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTS OF ADAM’S SIN.

1. Man at Creation was mortal, corruptible — a dying creature subject to death. Mortality was not a condemnation.

2. The sentence of Gen 2:17 is a “violent, inflicted or judicial death”. This “judicial death” was fulfilled in the typical slain animal and thus Adam was saved from violent death the day he sinned. (though still leaving the actual payment to be made at a later date).

3. The sentence on Adam in Gen 3:17—19 was “hard labour for the term of his natural life.” The term “dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return” in no way relates to the sentence of Gen 2:17.

4. Following the entry of sin all that was necessary to effect Adam’s death was to allow His existing nature to run its corruptible course. There was no physical change in Adam’s flesh which led to death.

5. (a) The “Affections & Lusts” of men are the same as their fore father Adam before the Fall. These inherited lusts are not in themselves evil. We do not inherit a nature of itself prone to sin. The curse of a harsh environment causes us to sin.

(b) The Caloundra Ecclesia differs from H. Twine. They believe that “‘something was transmitted to his (Adam’s) posterity but it was a mental bias and weakness not physical, which in the operation of the mind leads to sin”.

(2) IN RELATION TO CHRIST’S NATURE AND WHAT HIS DEATH ACCOMPLISHED.

6. That Jesus’ fleshly nature was the same as Adam & Eve’s physically and mentally before the fall. Jesus was not affected by any mental bias by virtue of his divine begettal. He was not under any condemnation, either physical or moral.

7. By his perfect obedience to the Law Jesus had won a title to life. His death was, therefore, not necessary to affect his own salvation. His death was voluntary and not compulsory in the sense of being necessary for his perfection. He died for us and not himself.

8. When men sin they incur the condemnation of “judicial death over and above the common death of all men!’. Christ saves men from this “judicial death” only Jesus “sacrificial death” pays our debt, and ransoms us from “judicial death”.

Jesus sacrificial death was the fulfillment of the death of the lamb slain in Eden. Jesus’ “sacrificial death” saves us from the violent death we incur because we sin. (This can only mean Jesus’ death was substitutionary for us — we live because he paid our penalty).

CHRISTADELPHIAN TEACHING.

The following statements set out Christadelphian beliefs (TRUTH) in answer to the erroneous teachings (ERROR)

(1) IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTS OF ADAM’S SIN.

(1.) ERROR — Man at Creation was mortal, corruptible — a dying creature subject to death. Mortality was not a condemnation.

TRUTH - Man at Creation was very good in physical constitution and environment; but he was not mortal. The Word of God never describes man at Creation as mortal hut contrariwise it is always used of man’s fleshly nature spoiled by sin and subject to death.

ERROR  – (a) The sentence of Gen 2:17 is a “violent, inflicted or judicial death”. This “judicial death” was fulfilled in the typical slain animal and thus Adam was saved from violent death the day he sinned. (though still leaving the actual payment to be made at a later date).

(b) The sentence on Adam in Gen 3:17-19 was “hard labour for the term of his natural life.” The term ‘dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return” in no way relates to the sentence of Gen. 2-17.

TRUTH - Adam broke the law of Gen 2:16-17 and God upheld His law and sentenced him to death in Gen 3: 17 - 19. The law of Gen 2:17 does not threaten Adam with summary execution the day he sinned, but condemns him to become a dying mortal creature from that day onward.

The term “surely die in scripture does not necessarily describe a violent death”, context determines its meaning. It is used, for example also of the slow death by physical exhaustion of the wilderness generation”. cp. Num. 26:65, Num 14:28 -33, Deut 2:14, In relation to Adam, God was cautioning him and emphasizing the certainty but NOT SPECIFYING THE MODE of death for sin.

The curses were a direct consequence of the first transgression. Sin and Curse were cause and effect. The decree of Gen 2:17 decreed the end of Adam’s sin to be certain death; the curses declared the means God introduced to accomplish that end. Expressed simply, the decree threatened punishment and the curses inflicted it. The decree of Gen.2:17 was immutable. In the very day (Gen 3:8) that Adam ate of the tree he was sentenced to return to the ground.

When in Gen 3:15 -19 the divine decree had been upheld in the sentence passed, then (v21) redemption was typically offered in the skin covering.

(4) ERROR - Following the entry of sin all that was necessary to Adam’s death was to allow His existing nature to run its corruptible course. There was no physical change in Adam's flesh which led to death.

TRUTH - Adam and Eve were affected morally and physically as a consequence of their sin.

1. MORALLY — in that they now knew good and evil & were ashamed of their physical nudity. Their conscience was defiled.

2. PHYSICALLY — or physiologically. (There is no difference in the terms) as applied by those who hold the truth.

(a) EVE was to bring forth children now with bodily sorrow.

(b) ADAM for the first time his return to the ground is mentioned, ”unto dust shalt thou return!’. The very ground itself too became subject to the curse and henceforth was to produce “thorns and thistles”, and Adam’s relationship to the earth in its cursed condition was clearly spelt out to him... “cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shall thou eat of it all the days of thy life”   Gen. 3:17 - 19.

Thus for Adam and Eve the consequences of sin were physical or physiological. Though they were “flesh and blood” before and after they were now, dying, mortal creatures because of sin.

Sin having been committed, man now experiences a body of disease and decay in which there is a distinct bias towards evil - which of himself he is unable to completely control. Rom. 5:12, I Cor. 15:22.

Note the following statements from the Unity Booklet.

“It is a fact that all have sinned (except the Lord Jesus) and this fact is explicable only because through Adam’s sin the original very good state was lost, and his posterity inherit a nature with a tendency to sin to which all have succumbed.” U.B. Pg. 20.

“What is it that is within us, that the Apostle describes as sin? Clearly there are the impulses that lead to sin. There are impulses there that are the result of sin at the beginning, which we have by inheritance.” U.B. Pg. 32.

“Our relationship to Adam is physical; we share the evil and mortality that belongs to him. But that physical inheritance is our misfortune; we cannot help it, and we are not to blame for it.” U.B. Pg.77.

“He was a sufferer from the hereditary effects of sin; for these effects are physical effects. Death is a physical law in our members implanted there through sin ages ago, and handed down from generation to generation.” U.B. Pg. 78.

“There is a principle element, or peculiarity in our constitution (it matters not how you word it) which leads to the decay of the strongest or the healthiest. Its implantation came by sin, for death came by sin; and the infliction of death and the implantation of this peculiarity are synonymous things. U.B. Pg. 81

ERROR — (5) a. The “affections & Lusts” of men are the same as their forefather Adam before the fall. These inherited lusts are not in themselves evil. We do not inherit a nature of itself prone to sin. The curse of a harsh environment causes us to sin.

b. The Caloundra Ecclesia differs from H. Twine. They believe that “something was transmitted to his (Adam’s) posterity but it was a mental bias and weakness not physical, which in the operation of the mind leads to sin!”

TRUTH — “As his descendants we inherit a nature prone to sin. By our actions we become sinners”. Addendum.

God declares “man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21) Jesus confirms this when he says, “For from within out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders etc., Mk. 7:21 - 23 (R.V.) “Sin is lawlessness” 1 Jn. 3:4 (R.V.) It is the EXPRESSION of ourselves in defiance of the will of God in thought, word and deed.

But these thoughts words and deed spring from evil propensities within us — the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye and the pride of life — which are not of the Father but of the world. These basic impulses are not literally “sin!’ in the sense John uses the term in I Jn. 3:4, but because they cause sin the term sin is used to describe them, by the principle of metonymy in which one thing is called by the name of another thing associated with it. Evil impulses cause sin. i.e. “Evil impulses” and “sin are cause and effect and hence the term sin is used by metonymy to describe these impulses. Thus Paul says, “In my flesh dwelleth no good thing — — —“ “sin that dwelleth in me”...” the law of sin in my members”. Rom. 7:18,20,23. In this sense our nature is ”unclean” and “defiled”.

Because this is so our nature is not like that of Adam’s before the Fall.

Our fleshly nature is appointed to death or ”condemned” because in it resides the “law of sin” as a result of Adam’s sin. (I Cor 5:22) But as individuals we are not condemned in a personal sense until we sin or “obey it in the lust thereof”. Jesus possessed human nature which was a nature under condemnation but his character was blameless and undefiled and not condemned by God.

This force or sinful lust was not part of Adam & Eve’s nature when God made them: He made them upright (Ecc. 7:29). For the forbidden fruit they knew no desire UNTIL the tempter “beguiled Eve”, for when the serpent questioned the divine prohibition, Eve’s answer was indicative of a disposition of unquestioned, and implicit obedience, - “God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it.” She was not “drawn away of her own lusts” as James could say of men AFTER the fall. As yet she knew no temptation. The first lie, of which the unenlightened serpent was the father (Jn 8.44), altered this, and it was upon belief of this and NOT before that Eve knew temptation (Gen 3:6). What Eve then experienced was not innocent sensation of hunger, which the tree had not hither to stimulated, but an urge to indulge appetite for an ulterior purpose (to be equal with the gods). This was her first experience of “lust”. Eve’s deceiver (the serpent) was external, but Paul speaks about “deceitful lusts’ within the natural man and says “sin deceived me”(Eph 4:23, Rom 7:11). After the first transgression diabolos was inward and not external. The strong-terms of Jer 17:9, Mk 7:21 etc. could never be applied to Adam and Eve as God made them.

Thus we inherit a nature prone to sin as a result of Adam’s transgression.

(2) IN RELATION TO CHRIST’S NATURE AND WHAT HIS DEATH ACCOMPLISHED.

(6) ERROR — That Jesus’ fleshly nature was the same as Adam & Eve’s physically and mentally before the Fall. Jesus was not affected by any mental bias by virtue of his divine begettal. He was not under any condemnation, either physical or moral.

TRUTH — “Jesus - of like nature with mortal man, being made of a woman --- and therefore a sufferer from all the effects that came from Adam’s transgression”. BASF Clause 10. see also Clauses 8 & 9.

No distinction is ever made between the fleshly nature of the Lord & all others. The “sameness” is emphasized, having in (5) shown what this heritage implies in the way of temptation for us, we have already shown it for the Lord too. The same lusts which are strong in us and cause transgression, were strong in him too.

(7) ERROR - By his perfect obedience to the Law Jesus had won a title to life. His death was, therefore, not necessary to affect his own salvation. His death was voluntary and not compulsory in the sense of being necessary for his perfection. He died for us and not himself.

TRUTH. — “Jesus was to obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience, and by dying, abrogate the law of condemnation for himself, and all who should believe and obey him”. BASF Clause 12.

“In his death he voluntarily declared God’s righteousness, God was honoured, and the flesh shown by divine appointment rightly related to death ------. We identify ourselves with the principles established in the death of Jesus “Who died unto sin”. Addendum.

Jesus’ submission to death was an essential element in order to complete obedience. He was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. It was God’s will and pleasure that he should die. God’s will is law. When faced with death Jesus said, “Not MY will but THINE be done.” Here were “two wills opposed to each other. To have obeyed “the flesh” would have been sin and resurrection to eternal life would not have followed. In so submitting to God’s will, Jesus declared God’s righteousness in the sublimest way. Of all things men count life most dear. In the case of Jesus God required the surrender of life itself in a cruel, shameful and debasing way — “The death of the cross”. He put God in the right and the flesh, his flesh, with its inherent proneness to sin, to death. In this way sinful lusts, the diabolos was completely destroyed. Far greater was the triumph of battling against sin in a body where a fallen nature was entrenched, than would have been the case had he commenced in innocence with a human nature unspoiled by heritage from Adam”.

Thus “Hebrews” teaches (2:10) that Jesus was “made perfect through suffering” (i.e. death). Immortality for him could not come without it. He was “saved from death” (i.e. out of death) and “made perfect when he “learned obedience by the things that he suffered” (Rom. 8:3 RV) i.e. in the flesh where sin holds dominion. In Romans “sin” is personified and likened to a King, Slave-owner, Employer etc., When Jesus died he judged Sin unworthy of having dominion over him and yielded himself to God’s will.

Sins need to be forgiven and the “body of sin” needs redemption. Jesus had no sins to be forgiven - as to character he was holy, harmless and undefiled - but his Body needed redemption. Thus by his own blood (death) he “obtained eternal redemption", was “purified” or “brought from the dead.” (Heb. 9:12,23, 13:20.)

He was not estranged from God because of his fleshly nature, nor did he have to be justified from his nature. Inheritance of fleshly prone to sin is a misfortune, not a crime. Ignorance and wicked works alienate from God. Jesus was God’s beloved son because he did always those things that pleased Him and shared the closest communion with God.

It is true that Jesus voluntarily laid down his life. No-one forced it from him as his surrender in the Garden shows, His willingness to do His Father’s will emphasized his conviction that the Spirit quickeneth and the Flesh profits nothing. His power to take back his life, however, lay in his obedience to death. Hence he said that “he MUST go up to Jerusalem ------ and suffer...” If he obeyed unto death God gave him the assurance that He would take it up. Hence Peter says “whom God hath raised up ----- “Wherefore God hath highly exalted him”. (Jn 10:17-18, Matt 16:21, Acts 2:24, Phil 2:8.-9).

(8) ERROR — When men sin they incur the condemnation of ”judicial death” over and above the common death of all men. Christ saves men from this ”judicial death” only. Jesus’ “sacrificial death” pays our debt, and ransoms us from “judicial death”.

TRUTH. — The flesh is rightly related to death because it inherits “affections arid lusts”. Men are mortal and die because of sin. Salvation in Christ is from that mortality that came by sin, Adam’s sin brought the sentence of   Gen 2:17 upon him. It was not “judicial death”. See Clauses (2 &3).

1 Corinthians 15 : 21 teaches.

By man (Adam) came Death.

By man (CHRIST) came RESURRECTION from the dead.

Resurrection contrasts with death, that is, this antithesis sets resurrection (or revival from physical death, mortality) in contrast with death. Hence Christ saves man from mortality and NOT “judicial death” only.

Jesus died as a representative of Adam’s fallen race and not a substitute. What he did in FACT we must do in TYPE at Baptism and in PRINCIPLE during our lives, “And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts” Gal. 5:24.

Christ’s death and Resurrection demonstrates that the flesh profits nothing and the spirit gives life, (John 6:63). Believers acknowledge this by repentance and at Baptism. Our Baptism SYMBOLISES what in ACTUAL FACT was accomplished in the death and resurrection of Christ.

Note carefully; the balanced statements that reveal the absolute nature of his representative offering.

“OUR OLD MAN............crucified WITH him.......that THE BODY OF SIN might be destroyed.” Rom. 6:6

“HE died unto sin once..........likewise reckon ye also   YOURSELVES to be dead indeed unto sin....

Rom. 6:10—11

He died to provide a Mercy seat whereby God could, through His grace and forbearance forgive sins. God forgives men for Christ’s sake (i.e. because of Christ). In Christ God’s mercy can be shown without his righteousness being forsaken. His love is not indifferent to Holiness.

He declares himself to be” a JUST God and a Saviour.” Thus “Grace reigns ‘through righteousness .“ (In Christ God is just while justifying those that believe in Jesus. Rom. 3:24 - 26; Isa. 45:21, Eph. 4:32.

If Christ died instead of us he should not have been raised and we should not die. But we die, and Christ was raised, his resurrection being everywhere insisted upon as a necessity in the case of man’s justification (Rom. 4:25, 5:10, I Cor. 15:17.) Besides which, substitution is wrong in principle for it is not right that a sinless man should die instead of others.

SUMMARY OF THE FOREGOING.

1. There has been a “departure from the faith” in matters fundamental to the basis of our fellowship.

2. The false theory has ramifications which undermine our whole understanding of the work of God, in Christ in reconciling the world to ‘Himself as expressed in Clauses 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of the B.A.S.F. and Addendum.

3. This theory CANNOT be harmonized with the B.A.S.F. and C.C. Addendum. The Addendum does not permit “liberty of conscience” by “simply and effectively deleting clauses 5 & 12” so allowing “two opposing ideas in the brotherhood to come together.”

The Addendum and B.A.S.F. harmonize as Scripture and B.A.S.F. harmonize. (Statements in inverted commas from the Caloundra Ecclesía).

4. The false theory accords in large part with the Nazarene Fellowship’s Theory of Atonement. The publications of this group have circulated in the areas where this Theory is believed.

5. The false theory is accepted. by Br. H. Twine, The Caloundra Ecclesia and others especially in the Queensland area.

THE BASIS OF FELLOWSHIP

The following article is a reprint of a recent circular forwarded to all Ecclesias throughout Australia and New Zealand. It contains some points that have already been dealt with in the forgoing paragraphs but is reprinted to emphasize the sincere concern of the Ecclesias under whose name it was published.

To the Members of the Christadelphian Brotherhood in Australia.

Dear Brethren & Sisters,

Recent troubles in the brotherhood in this country have given rise to grave concern and in issuing the following statement, the undersigned ecclesias do so with the motive that the growing breach might be healed.

We could not over emphasize the urgency of the need for TAKING EFFECTIVE ACTION.

The Statement is in reference to the current controversy surrounding the doctrine of the Atonement. It is folly to ignore the problem in the hope that it will thereby cease to exist. The situation has already resulted in division whereby certain ecclesias have withdrawn from others whom they claim are holding error, or harbouring those holding error.

The desire of the undersigned ecclesias in issuing this statement is firstly to preserve our precious heritage of Truth that has been won through the efforts of faithful brethren of the past: secondly, to restate our basis of fellowship as understood by the term “Central Fellowship” to which we all subscribe in 1958 and was the means whereby was established a foundation upon which to build the 'Unity of the Spirit’ and so cement our relationship one toward another in the “true bonds of peace” Eph. 4:4.

THE QUESTION OF FELLOWSHIP

It would appear that the greatest area of controversy and misunderstanding is upon the basis of “Fellowship”. In the June issue of the “Shield” magazine an article appeared over the signature of the Arranging Brethren of the Adelaide Ecclesia. This article fails to give a true definition of the basis of fellowship as understood by the unity movement, which brought the majority of ecclesias in this country into the “Central Fellowship”. We quote from that article ....

“Withdrawal from Ecclesias”

Where an ecclesia sets itself out by design to preach and propagate at large false doctrine the Brotherhood should disassociate from it. Our basis of fellowship provides no other grounds for this action........... Unquote.........(The last sentence in heavy type)....

We challenge this last sentence as not truly representing the spirit of the Unity booklet and certainly not representing the position of the Central Fellowship on this matter. Enclosed are excerpts from articles appearing in the “Christadelphian” magazine which will show that our basis of fellowship calls for withdrawal when, after full investigation of the facts and provision of opportunity for repentance, ecclesias retain in fellowship those who believe and propagate error. (Refer particularly to basis of fellowship as set out in the enclosed excerpt.) A careful reading of the article enclosed will reveal that this was always the accepted Christadelphian position, and one which was designed to keep out the grievous wolves who enter in “not sparing the flock”. Our call is for the implementation of the unity agreement before further damage is done by the errorists in allowing them freedom of movement among our community.

A comment is also in order in relation to the “Ecclesial Guide” which has been quoted in the “Shield” to imply that one ecclesia must respect the decision of another in fellowshipping whomsoever they will. This is certainly true in cases where there is no reason to doubt the standing of the persons being fellowshipped, or in cases of doubt where it is a question of judgment of fact. But where the persons are shown to be in grave error in doctrine or practice, the ecclesia fellowshipping such should be withdrawn from. Such was the teaching of Bro. Robert Roberts who compiled the “Guide”. See particularly the enclosed excerpts.

This is not to say that we uphold “Block disfellowship”, that is, automatic withdrawal from all ecclesias in fellowship with the one harbouring errorists. Action in relation to others would be on a basis of individual ecclesias, after all aspects of the case had been made known to them and time given for deliberation.

THE EXISTING CONDITIONS - real cause of disunity

Faithful Brethren and Sisters who embrace the Truth and strive to work it out in their daily walk will not deliberately set out to cause trouble and dissension. Nevertheless, how can they remain silent and tolerate in their midst things that are manifestly wrong which, if unchecked, would erode away our heritage. As long as such a condition exists there will be contention and division. Having given our consent to a sound basis of fellowship one with another, and between one ecclesia and another, we must maintain that agreement if we are to maintain harmonious relationships. The cause on contention is the departure from that sound basis by some and the compromise by others in the name of peace.

With the foregoing in mind consider the intolerable position now existing in the Queensland area.

1. Between the years 1967 - 69 the U.S.C. held long discussions with Bro. H.A. Twine, and after much deliberation recommended to the Australian Ecclesias (13/12/69) that he be not accepted into fellowship.

2. Subsequently a report was issued by the C.S.C. (30/4/70) setting out the doctrinal differences between the accepted Christadelphian stand and that of Bro. Twine and upholding their recommendation of 13/12/69.

3. The Petrie Terrace ecclesia (Brisbane) disregarded this recommendation and in turn circularized ecclesias announcing their intention of extending fellowship to Bro. Twine (2/10/70)

4. In recent meetings held with Bro. Twine the C.S.C. sub-committee affirmed that in their opinion he was still unsound in the faith.

5. Bro. Twine remains in fellowship with the Brisbane Ecclesia and thus he is at liberty to continue propounding his teachings under the protection of that ecclesia. Largely as a result of this, other brethren previously silent upon the wrong doctrines Bro.Twine has propounded now are emboldened to add their voice to his in dissenting from the B.A.S.F.

6. The Caloundra ecclesia has been outspoken in its denial of the B.A.S.F. suggesting among other things that Clauses 5 and 12 be deleted entirely and replaced by the Cooper-Carter addendum which in their view allows for “liberty of conscience” in holding different ideas on the vital doctrine of the Atonement.

7. The Toowoomba ecclesia has officially advised the C.S.C. of their withdrawal from the basis of unity centred around the B.A.S.F. but of their wish, nevertheless, to retain fellowship with all. (Their letter 24/5/71).

With the foregoing in mind we hope that all will see and appreciate our anxiety. It would not be difficult to see the harm caused by the article in the “Shield” if it were to be accepted as a true definition of the basis of fellowship. It would mean that so long as an ecclesia gave lip service to the unity basis they could retain in fellowship whomsoever they desired. We would be asked to accept this in good faith irrespective of the activities of the particular individuals who would be at liberty to propound whatsoever they imagined. This must inevitably lead to a complete breakdown in our movement. The harbouring and propagation of error would continue unabated until the light stand under the name of Christadelphians would no longer exist as anything but a mockery to the name we bear and a source of ridicule to those to whom we would endeavour to show the way of salvation. Paul twice said, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” 1 Cor. 5:6, Gal. 5:9.

THE SOLUTION.TO THE PROBLEM.

The objective raised by the Brisbane Ecclesia is that they have examined Bro. Twine and have satisfied themselves that he is sound in the Faith. However, in the light of his past record of rejection of the basis of fellowship and his deviousness (see U.S.C. report 30/4/71) we do not think it unreasonable or unrealistic to ask Bro. Twine for a repudiation of his false views if he is prepared to reject them. In conjunction with this it again is neither unreasonable or unrealistic to request from Bro. Twine an unequivocal acceptance of a positive set of propositions outlining the accepted Christadelphian understanding of the nature and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. If these conditions are met, and the ecclesias in Brisbane who have separated from Petrie Terrace are in full agreement, then the foundation exists upon which true unity can be established without compromising or jeopardizing our heritage.

It is our conviction that those ecclesias who agree with the definition of our basis of fellowship as outlined in the foregoing, this being “Central Fellowship” position, must take a stand upon this basis and convey their conviction to the Brotherhood. With such a co-ordinated action it is possible that a true basis of unity may be established for those brethren and sisters who are seeking to do that which is right before their God and their Brethren.

We invite your support of the foregoing. Any comments and suggestions which may aid our endeavours will be welcome.

TOLERATION FURTHER CAUSE OF DISUNITY.

We sincerely hope that the matter now placed before you will be sufficient evidence of our concern, and has justified the length of this “open letter”. Not only so but it will be our earnest prayer that it will arouse us all to unite together in the preservation of that wonderful doctrine of “Jesus Christ and him Crucified”, which has been the foundation of our brotherhood ever since the days of the Apostles.

It is a tragedy that we have to write in this fashion when the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ seems so close at hand. It will be a greater tragedy if the Brotherhood fails in its responsibilities, and we see wholesale division of our community as a result. The present unhappy situation has come as result of two factors, firstly because of false teaching, and then by procrastination on the part of us all in not dealing with these issues much sooner. Had the terms of our Unity Basis been implemented when the situation called for it, some may have been lost, but the greater part kept intact, but now with the involvement of so many a major disaster could well result.

Consider the following clauses governing the Unity of the household.

Unity Book. Pages 14 - 15

(Quote clauses a, b and c.)

These fellowship clauses were not unique for Australian conditions but are a summary of the position held by the “Central Fellowship” ever since they were drawn up in 1885 by Brother Roberts. Their purpose was not to divide but to preserve, and they were truly styled by one faithful Brother “A Bulwark of the unity of the Household of Christ’.

For your information we quote from the “Christadelphian” under the Editorship of Brethren Roberts and Carter.

Quote “Christadelphian”

1885

1945

1950

1952

We particularly draw your attention to point three (3) of the resolution as quoted from the 1952 “Christadelphian”, where we have plainly stated what is implied in the Unity Booklet Clause 2 (b), Page 15.

If that clause had been implemented with resolution and courage by the Petrie Terrace Ecclesia then much of the present distress could have been avoided. The harbouring of Brethren in error may appear to an act of kindness to the erring one, but when that is done they can only assume that toleration is agreement in principle, and so feel free to promulgate their ideas.

CONCLUSION.

In conclusion we would once again appeal to you all for a sympathetic hearing. At the risk of repetition we must say that not one of us desire to see the Brotherhood divided, God forbid that this should ever be the case. Our hearts desire is that all Israel should be saved, and we are prepared to be spent in that cause. If it seems desirable we would undertake to travel to Queensland, there to meet representatives of groups to discuss the problem with a view of establishing a genuine basis for “The Unity of the Spirit”.

Can we appeal to you to write to us with your thoughts on the serious problem before us. Your correspondence will mean much to our Brethren and Sisters who daily express anxiety they feel over the troubled state of our Ecclesias. Perhaps you may feel that what we allege against some is just not true, then please say and we will give documented evidence for everything said in this letter. However, let it be said that in so doing our objective will not just be to show someone wrong, but rather to prevent the brotherhood from becoming further involved in false teaching.

This letter is a genuine attempt to come to grips with a very real problem and to save our wonderful community, so dearly won for God through the death of His Son. Whatsoever is attempted here is under God’s supervision, and to him we pray that there may arise a spirit of good will among those who hold the Truth in purity, and a determined effort by all to unite behind the power of His Word.

Your Brethren and Sisters in Christ.

Brighton Ecclesia

Cumberland Ecclesia

Enfield Ecclesia

Tea Tree Gully Ecclesia

Woodville Ecclesia