The Christadelphian July 1958, John Carter

“The Truth in Australia”

All who have read the Diaries of the visits to Australia of bro. Robert Roberts will remember that again and again he was engaged in discussion concerning the nature of Adam when created, the effect of sin upon him, and the work of Jesus Christ in relation to man’s redemption. There was a recurrence of trouble in the early years of this century which led to division. We have read over the ecclesial intelligence of those troubled years, with the usual charge and countercharge in what bro. C. C. Walker at the time described as “a nebulous controversy”. At the time bro. Walker expressed the view that by personal face to face discussions he might do some good; later in 1911, he mentions a proposal for a visit by him, in which financial co-operation by both sections of the brotherhood was offered. He felt the difficulty arising from “the divisions that obtain”, but added that “if both parties could agree upon an invitation to brotherly mediation the way would be open”. Apparently the proposal fell through for we can find no further reference to the matter. And now when almost a half century has passed by a sufficiently representative invitation “to brotherly mediation” has led the present editor to visit Australia and this report of the work there is submitted to the brotherhood in Great Britain, Canada, U.S.A., South Africa and New Zealand and wherever brethren may be scattered abroad.

Some reference must be made to the background to the situation during the last few years. The majority of the ecclesias in Australia have been identified as “Shield” ecclesias. The Christadelphian Shield (begun we think when bro. Roberts was in Australia) has been the magazine representing these ecclesias. If for this record we continue to use the name, it is for purposes of identification and to facilitate the writing of this report. These ecclesias are principally in the cities of Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Newcastle, Perth and Sydney, smaller groups of brethren being in measure in isolation “up country”. Australia is a continent comparable in size to Europe and until recent “running to and fro”, the distances between ecclesias made close contacts difficult, and ecclesias tended to be somewhat isolated. Now modern transport, both by road and air, is bringing closer association. In more recent years, as the cities have grown, district ecclesias have been formed in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney.

The “Central” fellowship has been mainly represented by ecclesias in Melbourne, Sydney (Concord) and Brisbane (Elizabeth Street) with a few smaller groups in other places.

The invitation to visit Australia came in the first instance from the committee responsible for a Gathering, or Conference as it is called, which is held biennially, this year’s venue being Melbourne. This committee consisted almost entirely of representatives of Central ecclesias. (This statement will doubtless provoke a denial in some places, but a later explanation will make it clear.) Later the reunion committees in Melbourne and Sydney joined in the invitation and it was decided to accept it and give what help lay in our power to clarify the situation.

For some time we have had a note at the head of Australian intelligence items that the position was confused. A word of explanation may be here added. As reported in The Christadelphian, 1956, page 189, the Victorian ecclesias (that is in Melbourne and the vicinity) had agreed in 1953 on a basis for reunion, and with the exception of two ecclesias (one of which has since joined in), were co-operating together. This left somewhat undefined their position with regard to the ecclesias elsewhere in Australia and throughout the world. This was but a temporary problem, such as confronted the English ecclesias in the reunion in February, 1957. A committee of Shield ecclesias was formed in Sydney to co-operate in putting the effort begun in Victoria on an interstate basis. Then an invitation from the Conference Committee in 1956 to the editors of The Christadelphian and the Fraternal Visitor to contribute to the discussions on reunion by a letter, led to the writing of the communication which was reprinted in The Christadelphian of 1956, page 269. In that a suggestion was made that “when it was necessary in the interests of definition of a doctrine, sound simple clear language should be sought and the basic principles set forth”. In an addendum to the letter, a restatement of certain doctrines which have been the cause of strife was set forth as an illustration of our meaning. In the developments that followed, this addendum was adopted as part of a statement that was drawn up and submitted to all Central and Shield ecclesias as a basis of reunion.

In June, 1957, the English Reunion Committee addressed a letter to the recording brethren of all these Australian ecclesias, the letter being reproduced in The Christadelphian, 1957, page 311. Then in the issue for March of this year we reprinted the Proposed Basis for reunion to which reference has been made; and we added the comment: “It might be expected there will be margins of uncertainty for a time; but there appears to be a very widespread acceptance of the Statement given above, and in consequence the early co-operation of many ecclesias on that basis may be expected” (page 132). The interested reader is requested to turn to these previous reports to save reproduction here. We can now turn to a report on the position today.

On our arrival in Sydney we met the Unity Committee and had reports on the response of the ecclesias to the circular setting out the proposed basis for reunion. Consent to this in writing had been received from ecclesias representing upwards of 95 per cent of the brethren of the Shield and Victoria ecclesias. Two or three ecclesias in the “country” with very small membership were in doubt, but the Committee expressed their intention to clarify the position with them and also to deal with any cases of difficulty that might arise in the process of reunion. These assurances were endorsed later by the Unity Committee in Melbourne, and we were then enabled to go forward with a programme that had been drawn up. This covered the following: April 2–15, Melbourne; 16, 17, Launceston, Tasmania; 18–24, Sydney (with lecture at Newcastle); 25–30, Brisbane; May 1–7, Adelaide (and district ecclesias); 8–12, Perth; 13 and 14, Sydney. These arrangements were later modified a little to enable meetings for discussion to be held in Sydney, which curtailed the visits to Brisbane and Perth each by a day. Some idea of the work involved can be gained from the following summary. In twelve days spent in New Zealand before going on to Australia, we met four groups of arranging brethren, exhorted twice, lectured seven times and addressed two Fraternal Gatherings, in addition to private talks undertaken at the request of brethren. In Australia we met the Unity Committee in Sydney three times, the Melbourne Committee once. We met the arranging brethren of Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth ecclesias, and had several talks with the arranging brethren of Melbourne ecclesias. These conversations, usually occupying a whole evening, and sometimes a late sitting, were cordial and helpful. We also had meetings with the brethren in Sydney (Concord) and Brisbane who had dissociated themselves from Central fellowship at the time of reunion in England, and also with the Northcote arranging brethren who have separated from Horticultural Hall, Melbourne, since they disagree with a basis for dealing with visitors agreed by that ecclesia (see Intelligence from Melbourne, March, 1958, and Northcote, April, 1958). To some of these meetings we must refer at greater length. We also met brethren from the small ecclesias in Largs Bay, and at Perth, who had supported Concord West and Brisbane (Elizabeth Street) in counter proposals to the basis which had been accepted. Meetings in Brisbane and Adelaide were addressed on unity matters in England and Australia. In addition some 17 lectures were given (one on the Atonement in each town); exhortations were given every Sunday but one; three fraternal gatherings were addressed and two farewell meetings. On the whole it was a strenuous time, but it was greatly helped by the co-operation of the brethren in the arrangement of all transport, both local and from city to city, and the kind hospitality of the homes where we stayed where the sisters did everything possible for comfort and rest.

We will next consider the difficulties. That there were such we hinted in the article “The Truth in Australia” in The Christadelphian, 1956, page 311. Now perhaps we should put the issue plainly. The Concord ecclesia was at one time in Central fellowship; then separated and we believe was associated with the Berean group; but again resumed fellowship about 1940 with Central ecclesias. Over the years a series of pamphlets and circulars have emanated from a bro. P. O. Barnard, of Concord, sometimes with the endorsement of the ecclesia, but at other times on his own responsibility. A feature of the “Berean” fellowship has been a leaning towards the teaching of J. J. Andrew which was controverted in the 1890’s; not, be it said, to his views on resurrectional responsibility, but to those doctrines of condemnation and inherited sin and alienation which were the basis upon which he built the denial of resurrectional responsibility. This tendency was evident years ago in the U.S.A. and was pointed out in a “Message to all Christadelphians” which was sent to a conference convened in October, 1947, when Detroit was chosen as the meeting place. In that Message we sought to meet some questions to which answers were demanded by a brother in the Berean group and who has again separated himself since reunion in England. In our reply we showed there was not only identity of thought but identity of language with that of J. J. Andrew. The same doctrinal outlook is discernible in the teaching of bro. Barnard and those who support him.

We propose going into this matter in some detail next month, as we think something should be said not only to help the brethren in Australia but also to put the doctrinal issues in clearer perspective. There are doubtless brethren with bro. P. O. Barnard who know little of these issues but who have been imbued with the idea of doctrinal unsoundness on the part of those who do not subscribe to bro. Barnard’s teaching, and something should be said for their sakes. In all contentions extremes tend to beget extremes and some utterances by Shield brethren have doubtless been provoked by this teaching and must be looked at in this context. Again and again we found that brethren thought the B.A.S.F. had to be interpreted in the way Concord ecclesia taught. After patient enquiry it was evident that the Shield ecclesias were more representative of Central position than either Concord or Brisbane (Elizabeth Street) so far as the latter can be judged by the statements of their arranging brethren.

The contentions current are not new, as we have said. They concern condemnation and alienation for our physical nature; being children of wrath by birth; that Jesus needed because of his physical inheritance to be “brought nigh” to God. Yet the facts of Scripture are quite simple. If we ask, For what are we baptized? the answer of Scripture is always, For the remission of sins. Was Jesus a child of wrath? To ask such a question is to answer it, for everyone who is not entrammelled in the legal mystifications of the arguments advanced. Is a man estranged because of his physical nature? The answer of Scripture is that we are alienated by ignorance and by wicked works.

A few words might be added in response to requests made several times to clear up points of uncertainty concerning the usage of Bible language. What are the broad facts of Scripture teaching? Adam sinned and death came by sin. But two other things followed; death passed through to all men for that all sinned (Rom. 5:12). 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. Because this inherited tendency is so evident a characteristic of human nature, and because it is the result and the cause of sin, Paul by the use of metonymy can describe it as sin: “It is no more I but sin that dwelleth in me”. He gives it other names as well, such as “a law—evil present with me”, the “flesh”, “a law in my members”, etc. (Rom. 7). A similar usage of metonymy is found in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul says that “Him who knew no sin God made to be sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”. This statement is one of a whole series of paradoxes in 2 Cor. 5–7. Christ the sinless was made to be sin in sharing in the effects of sin in his life, and by his death providing the conditions for the forgiveness of sins and finally the removal of all the effects of sin. The same usage occurs in Heb. 9:28 which declares that Jesus will appear the second time apart from sin unto salvation. It is a fallacy in reasoning to say that what is affirmable of sin literal must apply to sin used in this metonymical way. We are blameworthy for our sins, but we cannot help the possession of the natures with which we were born. Sins need forgiving and our nature needs changing. Sins are forgiven now for Christ’s sake but the change of nature takes place when the Lord comes. “The most outrageous statement that has been made (in the Andrew controversy) is the one that men are objects of divine anger because they are flesh” (The Christadelphian, 1894, page 466).

In Romans 5–8 by the figure of personification Sin is represented as a Master that pays wages, as a king that reigns, and as a slave owner. By the same figure Sin is represented in a court scene as being condemned–its ownership of men was lost and its own destruction was decreed. God condemned Sin in the work and death of Jesus. Hence Jesus shared our nature that in the very arena where Sin ruled, its claim could be contested and overthrown. Therefore Paul adds that God condemned Sin, in the flesh—the flesh in question being the flesh that Jesus and all other men alike share. Much confusion has arisen from treating the phrase “sin in the flesh”, which occurs but once, as a hyphenated expression. Similarly the phrase “sinful flesh” which also occurs only once is strictly “flesh of sin”, in which phrase the figure of personification and ownership is continued.

Another cause of difficulty arises out of the Lord’s relationship to his own death. It is affirmed in Scripture that “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption”; and that “God brought from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the everlasting covenant”; and that he was saved out of death. He needed redemption: he needed salvation from death. The confusion arises when we isolate him from his work. He was there to be our saviour, and but for our needs we may reverently say he would not have been there. God purposed that as by man came death, by man must come resurrection. He must be one who died but whose resurrection was assured. God set him forth to declare His righteousness, that identifying ourselves with him we subscribe to the declaration of God’s righteousness made by him. He did these things for himself that it might be for us. We are not entitled to say what he would have had to do had he stood alone—that is purely hypothetical, neither may we say that because God required his death in the given circumstances in becoming our saviour, God would have required the same under different conditions. We do not know. On the one hand we must accept what is written concerning his benefit from his own work, while on the other hand we keep clearly in mind that the purpose of it all was that we might be saved through him.

These added comments will, we hope, help to keep in right perspective the revealed facts concerning sin, and the use of the word by the figure of personification and metonymy.

The wondrous love of God in giving Jesus, his perfect obedience to the Father, even unto death on the cross, the offer of the forgiveness of sins, the promise of life by the transformation of our bodies like unto the body of his glory, the provision of one who ever liveth to make intercession for us, and who can save to the uttermost—these and kindred truths can be overlaid with cloudy and mystifying strifes of words, which dishearten the simple earnest believer, annoy the earnest seeker after the deeper things of divine truth, and destroy the soul enlarging and purifying effects which God intended the offering of His Son should produce. The love of Christ constrains to holiness, not to strife.