The Christadelphian June 1957

“Fellowship in Australia”

[References were made to the ecclesial position in Australia in The Christadelphian for May, 1956. The Reunion Committee, after careful consideration of the issues, and having regard to present interecclesial problems arising out of reunion in Britain, decided to address a letter to all Australian ecclesias. We have been asked by brethren in Australia to publish this letter in The Christadelphian. It is therefore here reproduced.]

21 Hendon Road,

Sparkhill,

Birmingham, Eng.

4th June, 1957.

To the Recording Brethren of all Australian Ecclesias.

Dear brother,

In April, 1956, in response to an invitation from Australia, brethren Carter and Cooper sent a message to the Conference which was being held in Adelaide. In it they offered comments on the divided state of ecclesias and ventured to make suggestions to help towards unity. The very hearty response of the Conference to this letter in deciding that copies should be circulated to all ecclesias in Australia, prompts us to address a further communication to all Australian ecclesias. We do this particularly in view of the fact that Reunion of the Central and Suffolk Street ecclesias in Great Britain has taken place, and because of the effect of this upon Australian ecclesias.

We appreciate that meetings for Reunion in the State of Victoria have resulted in a basis of agreement, upon which fellowship may take place, and to which a number of ecclesias have subscribed, while there are Central ecclesias which have not so subscribed. The position in Australia, as also in Great Britain, thus suggests the need for considering whether any basis for reunion among all ecclesias in Australia is possible.

The basis which the ecclesias in Victoria agreed upon was published in The Christadelphian for May, 1956 (page 189). The basis upon which Reunion in Great Britain has become effective is defined in the Final Statement, which was also published in The Christadelphian of June, 1956 (page 252). This Statement is particularly related to the difficulties which have arisen in the past in Great Britain, but which have not been the occasion of difficulty in Australia. For example, the existence in Great Britain of ecclesias whose separation from Central ecclesias goes back to the division on Resurrectional Responsibility about 1896–1900, led to the inclusion of a Clause on that subject. Similarly, a Clause on Inspiration removes any lingering doubts on the issue which caused division 70 years ago. We believe that neither of these issues affects ecclesias in Australia. The particular issues with you have been caused by contentions concerning the subjects set out in Clauses 5–12 of the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. It was for this reason that brethren Carter and Cooper included an addendum to their letter in which they set out (without the use of those clichés which have become war-worn shibboleths in this contention) what they believe was intended by these Clauses. We do not favour additions to the B.A.S.F.; nor are explanations and definitions very desirable. But when division exists a re-statement such as the Final Statement has its uses as a basis for Reunion.

We understand that most of The Shield ecclesias already use the B.A.S.F. In this country, while some ecclesias have their own statements of faith, we have agreed in the first clause of the Final Statement that the first principles of the One Faith are set forth in the B.A.S.F. The fact that so many ecclesias in Australia of both fellowships already recognize this Statement of Faith as the basis of their fellowship should surely be of great help in promoting reunion in Australia.

It is not our province to suggest any formulation of doctrine which needs to be set out in Australia for the purpose of Reunion discussion. The brethren in Australia who know the problems naturally have the responsibility for drawing up any statement which your ecclesias could adopt. We do, however, suggest on the basis of our experience in Great Britain, that quiet examination of the difficulties and frank, brotherly discussion, will show that some of these are imaginary, and that others can be resolved. We certainly think that the particular issues that have troubled the ecclesias in Australia have been aggravated by the technical elaboration of Clauses 5–12. Such elaborations if pursued with great fervour and intense feeling provoke opposition; extremes beget extremes; and the ecclesial atmosphere can become fogged by technicalities beyond the range and interest of most brethren and sisters.

This letter is an appeal to all Central and Shield ecclesias to decide whether the proposals put forward in Victoria can be accepted elsewhere, or failing that, some other Statement be drawn up to which ecclesias could subscribe. It may be that a simple endorsement of the B.A.S.F. coupled with the addendum to the Carter-Cooper letter, or some equivalent, together with a clause defining fellowship (cf. Clause 2 of the Final Statement) would prove all-sufficient. Be that as it may, we hope that a positive approach will be made to the subject of reunion by which it might be possible to remove the difficulties arising from the partial action in Victoria which affect the whole of Australia, and also the uncertainties arising out of the developments in Great Britain.

Some steps have already been taken: and brethren in the Shield ecclesias of Sydney are actively considering the problem. Some Victoria ecclesias have already given effect to an arrangement, upon an agreed basis. The time, therefore, seems opportune for a fresh consideration of the issues so that a greater harmony might be established among Australian ecclesias.

Sincerely your brethren in the Lord,

C. E. Bennett

F. E. Mitchell

John Carter

E. W. Newman

C. Cooper

J. Smith

I. Evans 

T. W. Standeven

L. C. Jennings

F. W. Turner

J. Marshall 

H. A. Twelves