The Christadelphian, November 1955, John Carter

“Reunion Notes re Statements of Faith”

There is one matter on which considerable misunderstanding exists abroad. It concerns the proposed liberty for an ecclesia to retain its own Statement of Faith, while accepting the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith as a correct definition of the First Principles to be believed. The existence of different Statements has come as a surprise to some, but the history of the Truth’s revival makes it plain. Dr. Thomas never drew up a formal Statement—he published a synopsis of Truth, but of all his writings The Revealed Mystery comes nearest to a doctrinal definition of our faith. This, however, was in the first instance an article in the Herald. Dr. Thomas looked for the Lord’s return in 1870; and this influenced his attitude to ecclesial developments; and the work of ecclesial organization fell upon the shoulders of bro. Roberts. But small ecclesias had been formed in Great Britain as the result of Dr. Thomas’s first vist in 1848. We have before us a “Constitution of the London ecclesia of Immersed Believers”, the third edition, which bears the date 1870. It consists of items of positive truth, a list of erroneous doctrines, and rules of ecclesial arrangements. It includes a clause on the Inspiration of the Scriptures. “A Synopsis of Essential Truths” by the same author as this “Constitution” was published in 1862. We cannot trace the beginnings of the first Birmingham Statement of Faith. We have before us a copy of “The Record of the Birmingham Christadelphian Ecclesia” for 1868 which contains a Statement of the One Faith. This was evidently modified and slightly expanded between 1871 and 1875, The Record of 1875 containing the newer edition. In 1877 this enlarged Statement was published jointly by the London (Islington) ecclesia and bro. Roberts. We have a copy of the London (Islington) ecclesia’s Statement which differs from this, and which presumably that ecclesia used before having the joint issue in 1877. After the division of 1884 bro. Roberts revised the Statement, and in 1886 the revised form became The Statement of the Birmingham Christadelphian Ecclesia.

There were other ecclesias which need not now be particularized, which, during these years, had their own Statements. After the 1884 division the Suffolk Street ecclesias continued for many years to use the Statement of 1877. After the trouble on Adamic Condemnation raised by J. J. Andrew, Clause 24 of the Temperance Hall Statement was amended in 1898, and hence this Statement is generally described as the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. In 1916 a Clause was added on police service. Of overseas definitions of the Faith we cannot say much. We have an old Australian Statement which is much simpler than the current Statement and which must belong to the earliest days of the Truth in that Continent.

What is the purpose of a Statement? It is to define the doctrines believed by a community. We speak of it as a basis of faith, but in so doing we are in danger of obscuring a vital truth. The first principles of Bible teaching are the basis upon which brethren and sisters have fellowship with each other; and it is important that this be kept firmly in mind. A Statement is necessary to set forth those first principles as commonly understood by the members of the community, in order that the conditions of association are well defined and that the testimony to those truths may be consistently exhibited to others. But just as two lecturers can proclaim the same truths in different words, so two Statements can define the same truths in different words. One lecturer may be more clear and precise than the other, and the same might be true also of the Statements. The inherent difficulty of defining doctrine briefly and unambiguously makes it desirable that brethren without much experience or aptitude should not essay the task: and many brethren mighty in the Word and with long practice of setting forth the Truth would doubtless hesitate about attempting it.

A comparison of the various Statements reveals defects here or there, either in the way of omission or in the form of words used. The present Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, for example, contains a clause on Inspiration. When we remember that there had been at the time it was framed prolonged controversy on this subject it is surprising that this is not better stated. The definition of “the book currently known as the Bible” as “consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets and the apostles” either excludes some writers (e.g. Solomon, James and Jude) or it is defective in its definition of “the book”. To say “we know what it means” is not a good apology for what defines an essential article of faith. But if we insist that “what we know it means” is to be the way it must be understood, then we must be careful that we concede others the same right of explanation of what they mean. Other matters could be mentioned but this is sufficient to illustrate our point that the task of drawing up a Statement above criticism is well nigh beyond human power.

To the outstanding personal influence of bro. Roberts; to the size and importance of the Birmingham ecclesia in the earlier days when most ecclesias were very small; and to the fact that the Birmingham Statement was available in printed form, is doubtless due to the general adoption of the Birmingham Statement by other ecclesias. The number of ecclesias in Great Britain has increased to nearly 300, and the natural tendency is for a new ecclesia to become established on the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith.

The majority of ecclesias thus use the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith and this in increasing proportion as new ecclesias adopt it. Some would insist on all ecclesias using the same Statement. There may be good arguments for this, but they are not conclusive. For one thing, we cannot maintain ecclesial autonomy and at the same time demand the adoption of a particular Statement. In any case, who has the right to demand it? Again and again in The Christadelphian it has been pointed out that “The Christadelphian Statement” does not exist; there is no universal Statement. The Birmingham Statement becomes that of others as and when they adopt it. In 1903 bro. C. C. Walker had some comments which we reproduce below.

It is desirable in such discussions for Reunion as those which have led to these remarks, to have one widely recognized Statement established as a touchstone, and the Statement for Reunion before the English ecclesias makes, for the first time, the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith to be such a touchstone.

We should, however, always remember that it is the gospel that is the power of God to salvation. Those who believe the gospel in its various elements find in the gospel itself the basis upon which they share in the hope of salvation. A Statement of Faith, absolutely essential in a religious group whether large or small as a definition of things believed, is not the gospel but the gospel defined in a particular way for a particular purpose.

We feel that there is a danger of exalting a Statement of Faith above the gospel itself: it is the Truth that makes free, and only when Statements are recognized as defining that Truth are they being rightly used.

“The” Statement of Faith

In 1903 a brother in the Antipodes proposed that The Birmingham Statement of Faith should be entitled The Christadelphian Statement of Faith, and accepted by all ecclesias. To this bro. C. C. Walker replied (Christadelphian, 1903, page 412):

“It will be seen that the substance of the Statement in question is accepted as good and true. The only thing objected to is the name, Birmingham. The brother has no sympathy with this objection, but would remove it ‘because it is looked upon as objectionable to many’. That is not sufficient reason. Nazareth was ‘looked upon as objectionable by many’, so that one said, ‘Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?’ Yet, ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ became the recognized definition of the Lord—not Jesus of Bethlehem, nor Jesus of Jerusalem. And ‘the sect of the Nazarenes’ became the description of the despised brethren of the Man of Sorrows. What if history repeats itself in the latter days, and gives the clerical scribes and Pharisees of an apostate world the opportunity of sneering at ‘Brummagem religion’? If it had pleased God to make the centre of the truth’s radiations Jerusalem, Rome, Oxford, or Cambridge, He could have done it, and one or other of these names would then have naturally become prominent in that connection. It is suggested that the Birmingham brethren might meet the objections named by removing the word Birmingham. The answer is they have no authority to speak for any community but their own. They say over the head of their propositions: ‘A Statement of the Faith, forming our Basis of Fellowship’. They cannot say ‘The Statement . . . forming all the ecclesias’ Basis’. They would soon be reminded of this if they attempted it. There are several ‘churches’ in England who have different but equivalent statements. There is no reason why this should not be so; neither is there any reason why an ecclesia should not adopt the ‘Birmingham Statement’ if it sees fit to. The mere objection to the name is unworthy of respect, and will so appear in the day of judgment. Supposing the Christadelphian world had a Uniform Statement of Faith; how much better off would it be on that account than the Church of England with the Thirty-nine Articles, which no man regardeth? What is wanted to secure unity is uniform faith and obedience, and this is only to be developed by the word of God and patient continuance in well doing. Some have said they want no statement but the Bible; but, of course, that is not enough, for all sorts of people would accept that, who do not know the Bible, and consequently do not believe and obey. Here the trouble would be, not the lack of a common document, for all would have the Bible, but the lack of a common faith and obedience; and it is so in all cases. Dr. Thomas, many years ago, gave us in The Revealed Mystery his summary of the Christianity revealed in the Bible. This we accept as good and true, and believe the ‘Birmingham Statement’ to be in harmony with it. Some ecclesias in the colonies took as a basis The Declaration of the Truth. This was never intended for such use; but only as a pioneer pamphlet, introducing the main features of the truth. In the inevitable frictions that have arisen from time to time in the one body throughout the world, the one great desideratum has been unity of mind in affectionate desire to know, and earnest determination to do, the will of God in this age and generation. This is only produced by the Word, and will never be universal this side of the Kingdom of God. In every age the true servants of God have been a mere handful in the midst of professors. We are not to suppose that it will be different in the latter days. And however distressing it may be, it is to be met not so much by new Statements of Faith, as by the patient striving after a new heart and a new spirit, after the example of holy men of old.”

Again in 1927, page 215, bro. Walker wrote:

“No ecclesia has authority to issue a document to be called ‘THE Statement of Faith’, though it has been done by at least one. The most that any ecclesia can rightly say is, This is our Constitution and Statement of Faith. Thus, as concerning The Birmingham Temperance Hall Ecclesia, the title runs: ‘The Constitution of the Birmingham Temperance Hall Ecclesia . . . in which is contained A Statement of the Faith forming their Basis of Fellowship’. It, or an equivalent with slight modifications, has been adopted by many ecclesias all over the world as a practical working basis. To this there can be no valid objection. On the other hand, many ecclesias will have nothing to do with it, preferring their own formulae. To this also there can be no valid objection, so long as we are agreed concerning apostolic faith and practice.” 

Note

The article by bro C. C. Walker from The Christadelphian, 1903, quoted by bro John Carter was about a proposal by bro Wauchope of the Adelaide ecclesia in the Shield magazine June, 1903. The beginning of the article reads;

"There is a movement at the Antipodes to minimise the wreckage caused by ecclesial strifes, by the introduction of a uniform Statement to be called “The Christadelphian Statement of Faith.” As explained by brother Wauchope, of Adelaide, in The Shield for June: “The proposal is to establish a code of propositions and endorse them as a basis for fellowship. Where or to whom,” says he, “shall we look? Already the Christadelphian world has a document known as “The Birmingham Statement of Faith,” which has been very largely adopted. What is required, however, is not a local statement of faith, but one to operate generally, and therefore let that be designated “The Christadelphian Statement of Faith,” as a foundation for fellowship, comprised of the present Birmingham Statement of Faith, together with the Commandments of Christ, and the doctrines to be rejected. "It will be seen ..."