Website Article

“The Unity Agreement Precludes Clean Flesh from Fellowship as Error”

Does the Unity Agreement Allow Two Separate Views on the Atonement?

Some Australian ecclesias and brethren claim that the Australian Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement, to include the doctrine known as Clean Flesh as promulgated by bro John Bell. However, this claim is incorrect and cannot be substantiated from the facts. 

The Unity Agreement is silent on any notion that it allows two separate views on the Atonement and there is nothing else to indicate that it does. On the contrary, a natural reading of the Unity Agreement and the context of the discussions and correspondence at the time make it clear that the Unity Agreement allows only one view on the doctrine of the Atonement which is the longstanding historical and consistent Central view held by ecclesia’s worldwide.

This other separate view on the doctrine of the Atonement that is claimed to be allowed in fellowship by the Unity Agreement is the form of Clean Flesh that was promulgated by Bro John Bell in the early 1900’s. This was the cause of the division from the worldwide Central fellowship in 1904 to become the Shield fellowship and is precluded in the Unity Agreement because it is erroneous and is opposed to the longstanding historical and consistent Central position held by ecclesias worldwide.

This claim that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement, was aired in a paper issued by the then Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.) in February 1987 entitled “The Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias from the Australian Perspective with Reference to the Present Position of Petrie Terrace and Beverly Hills Ecclesias.”

“The special significance of the Cooper/Carter Addendum becomes apparent when it is placed alongside the historical doctrinal arguments of Australian Christadelphians since 1903, especially when the relevance of the present fellowship difficulties of Petrie Terrace and Beverly Hills is noted. No renunciation of the propositions of John Bell, J.B.Watson, A.J.Webb or A.E.Harvey were called for, required or given. Many of the assertions about fellowship and salvation levelled by those who opposed the “Shield” brethren were set aside. What seemed to be opposing points of view affecting fellowship between UK and Australia were replaced as far as fellowship was concerned with a memorandum of understanding to which all parties agreed. The acceptance of this understanding replaced the previous criteria for fellowship...”

“It is the view of the A.C.C, from its awareness of the doctrinal positions of the Petrie Terrace and Beverly Hills ecclesias that their fellowship positions conform with the Unity Agreement.” (Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias)

It should be noted that at the time the A.C.C issued this paper in 1987, the Petrie Tce and Beverly Hills ecclesias had been withdrawn from by many Australian ecclesias for tolerating in fellowship the erroneous doctrines of clean flesh and holy spirit possession respectively.

Shield Clean Flesh and Theistic Evolution

This paper issued by the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.) is advanced as proof that Theistic Evolution is not precluded from fellowship as error by the Unity Agreement because it is claimed that it allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement. Some of the beliefs of Theistic Evolution necessarily include some beliefs identical with the Shield Clean Flesh doctrine concerning the creation of mankind and how sin and death came into the world and the consequences of that, such as;

1. Adam's nature was mortal and biased to sin (like current humans) before the fall;

2. There was no change in Adam's nature as a consequence of his transgression;

One example of this is the “Christadelphians Origins Discussions” website which defends Theistic Evolution being tolerated in fellowship. They reproduce the paper by the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.) on a page entitled “An alternative history of Australian views on Adam” and introduce it with this preamble.

“As has well been pointed out an Adam based faith is focused on the wrong man. Jesus is the basis of salvation, Adam brings death, division and failure. Below is a letter from the precursor of the A.A.C.E. from 1987. The letter was controversial at the time. It demonstrates a range of opinions existed on Adam’s nature in Australia (and the pioneers!). It’s language at times seems unsoundly optimistic about our relationship with sin. However it provides important context on the Australian Unity Agreement which brought two opinions into fellowship. It also makes important observations about what the Unity Agreement did not address.” ("An alternative history of Australian views on Adam," Christadelphian Origins Website) 

A similar claim has also been made by the Halifax St ecclesia in Adelaide, in their paper entitled “An Appeal to Member Ecclesias of the I.E.A.C.” in October 2019. This paper was an attempt by the Halifax St ecclesia to justify their position of tolerating in fellowship a brother withdrawn from by the Salisbury ecclesia who believes in Theistic Evolution.

The main issues at stake are highlighted in a “Statement of Outcomes: Adelaide-Salisbury meeting 20 August 2020” where the Halifax St ecclesia maintains that “a brother can hold views contrary to any one or more of Salisbury's 4 points and still conscientiously and validly assent to the Unity Agreement.” The four points Salisbury defined as the erroneous beliefs of this brother are;

1. Adam's nature was mortal and biased to sin (like current humans) before the fall;

2. There was no change in Adam's nature as a consequence of his transgression;

3. Contemporary evolved humans were coexisting with Adam and Eve at creation, and

4. Not all humans have descended from Adam

Points 1 and 2 are foundation beliefs of the Shield Clean Flesh doctrine, but all four points are serious error on essential doctrines that conflict with the scriptural teaching defined in the B.A.S.F. and the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.). The Halifax St ecclesia could only contend that they are justified in retaining a brother with these beliefs in fellowship if they interpreted the Unity Agreement as allowing two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement in fellowship.

This latest resurgence of Theistic Evolution error has once again highlighted the divisive issues caused by the toleration of the Shield Clean Flesh error in fellowship that has plagued the Australian brotherhood since the early 1900’s. These issues were meant to have been resolved by the Unity Agreement to bring the Shield ecclesias into line with the longstanding historical and consistent Central view held by ecclesias worldwide. Unfortunately this has never been fully accepted or properly implemented.

Clearly there were a minority of Shield ecclesias and brethren who interpreted it as “a memorandum of understanding” which accommodated the Shield practice of tolerating brethren with Clean Flesh in fellowship. If this interpretation was accurate it would mean that a significant change to the worldwide Central position on the atonement and fellowship occurred with the Unity Agreement.

A reading of the accompanying explanations on the Atonement in the Unity Book by bro Carter dispels any myth that the Unity Agreement was intended to be “a memorandum of understanding” which accommodated the Shield practice of tolerating brethren with Clean Flesh in fellowship. See "First Report on Unity in Australia" (Unity Book p17), "The Atonement" (Unity Book p25), "Reference to Pioneer Writings" (Unity Book p72). These express the same position as bro Carter's other writings on the Atonement.

It is difficult to understand how this minority of ecclesias and brethren can read into the Unity Agreement that it allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement. This concept that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement is not the common understanding shared by the majority of ecclesias or brethren in Australia. In fact Bro Michael Ashton (then editor of The Christadelphian magazine) made this point in a report of a visit to Australian ecclesias in February 1988.

“However, some brethren have gone so far as to suggest that the Unity agreement (which of course incorporates the Statement of Faith used by Christadelphians throughout the world) specifically allowed two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement to be acceptable in fellowship. It is difficult to see how this understanding could have arisen. Furthermore, we believe this view seriously challenges the integrity of the brethren who were responsible for drafting and negotiating the Reunion agreement. It is impossible to read the transcripts of the addresses given throughout Australia by Brother Carter when these subjects were under discussion and believe that he would be party to framing an agreement which would allow another doctrine in fellowship. Significantly, two of these addresses are printed in the Unity booklet itself, thus showing the importance of this exposition in the process of reunion which took place in 1958.” (The Christadelphian, April 1988)

Indeed it “is difficult to see how this understanding could have arisen” particularly in view of the clear statements on the Atonement made at the time by bro John Carter that are specifically included in the Unity Book.

There is nothing to suggest that the Unity Agreement was ever intended to accommodate two views on the atonement, let alone the Shield Clean Flesh doctrine. This is indeed a serious challenge to “the integrity of the brethren who were responsible for drafting and negotiating the Reunion agreement.”

The Worldwide Central Position and Shield Ecclesias in 1958

The paper issued by the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.) states that in 1958, “Bro. Carter found that in Australia the “Shield” ecclesias were more Central than those who had been calling themselves Central.”

This loose allusion to bro Carter’s comment is an attempt to give credibility to those who hold the view that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement by claiming that the “Shield” ecclesias aligned with the worldwide Central position. The actual comment by bro Carter alluded to in the paper issued by the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.), was made by him in The Christadelphian, July 1958.

“In all contentions extremes tend to beget extremes and some utterances by “Shield” brethren have doubtless been provoked by this teaching (i.e. the teaching of bro P.O. Barnard of the Concord ecclesia) 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.” (Unity Book p19 from The Christadelphian, July 1958).

Who were the Shield ecclesias that bro Carter found were more representative of the worldwide Central position than these two Australian Central ecclesias? 

When bro Carter referred to the “Shield” ecclesias he was referring to the majority of the Shield ecclesias, who had come to accept the scriptural teaching defined in the B.A.S.F. and had rejected the Clean Flesh doctrine. This situation had developed over a number of years by the influence the Logos magazine in promoting the Central Christadelphian view of the Atonement of the pioneer brethren, which is the longstanding historical and consistent Central view of the Atonement held by Central ecclesias worldwide.

This understanding was expressed by the Reunion Committee in Great Britain in a letter they sent to the recorders of all Australian ecclesias in 1957.

“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. (Letter from the Reunion Committee in Great Britain to the recording brethren of all Australian ecclesias dated 4th June 1957, The Christadelphian August 1957).

The same understanding was expressed by bro Cooper and bro Carter in a letter they wrote to the Adelaide Conference in April 1956, 

“We understand that most of the ecclesias in Australia do use the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. As an indication of the unity of the Faith that is enjoined upon believers, is it not possible for all to approve it as the definition that is best known and most widely accepted?” (Unity Book p8, A Letter on Unity from England,1956).

While most of the Shield ecclesias had come to adopt the scriptural teaching defined in the B.A.S.F. a minority of them had not adopted the scriptural teaching defined in the B.A.S.F. as a condition for fellowship. These ecclesias continued to reject some clauses of the B.A.S.F. as they had done for decades. This minority of Shield ecclesias were far from representative of the historical Central position held worldwide, which was that the scriptural teaching defined in the B.A.S.F. be upheld as a condition of fellowship.

The "utterances" by Shield brethren referred to by bro Carter above are "the citations of utterances such as that the Statement of Faith contains blasphemous assertions, by brethren in Australia who are still retained in association" (Unity Book p10, A Letter on Unity from England) Such assertions by these Shield brethren were a barrier to reunion and were opposed to the Central position, let alone representative of it. These "utterances" were not new and were not caused by bro Barnard or the Concord ecclesia. These “utterances” had been consistently made by various Shield brethren in “The Shield” magazine and other writings since the time bro John Bell taught his version of Clean Flesh in the early 1900’s.

The appeal of bro Cooper and bro Carter in their letter was for those remaining Shield ecclesias to adopt the B.A.S.F. as a basis for reunion with Central ecclesias throughout the world. Bro Carter's comment quoted above, was clearly not referring to the minority of Shield ecclesias that had not adopted the scriptural teaching defined in the B.A.S.F. and retained in fellowship brethren who opposed it with Shield Clean Flesh beliefs.

This is evident from bro Carter’s exposition of the longstanding historical Central position on the Atonement that follows in the very same article in which he commented "that the “Shield” ecclesias were more representative of Central position than either Concord or Brisbane (Elizabeth Street)", (Unity Book p18, from The Christadelphian, July 1958). Bro Carter’s exposition in this article upheld the scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F. very clearly in a way that was incompatible for accommodating the Clean Flesh doctrine that this minority of Shield ecclesias tolerated in fellowship. They were not in any way “representative of the Central position.”

As bro Michael Ashton said, “It is impossible to read the transcripts of the addresses given throughout Australia by Brother Carter when these subjects were under discussion and believe that he would be party to framing an agreement which would allow another doctrine in fellowship.” (The Christadelphian, April 1988).

The teaching and toleration of Clean Flesh in fellowship was the very cause of the division between Central and Shield ecclesias, whereas the adoption of the scriptural teaching defined in the B.A.S.F. as a condition of fellowship by the majority of Shield ecclesias precipitated discussions on reunion as this created the conditions for it.

If this minority of Shield ecclesias were in any way representative of the historical worldwide Central position, they would have been able to endorse the "Time to Heal" articles which re-affirmed the same historical worldwide Central position bro Carter outlined in his "First Report on Unity in Australia" (Unity Book p18, The Christadelphian, July 1958). 

The "Time to Heal" articles were referenced as an explanation of clauses 4-12 of the B.A.S.F. in the "Basis for Union and Fellowship" agreed by the Victorian ecclesias in 1953.

“It is accepted that, should the need arise for a further elaboration of clauses 4 to 12 of the “Birmingham Statement of Faith”, the “Time to Heal” articles shall be deemed quite satisfactory for the purpose.” (Basis for Union and Fellowship in Victoria 1953. The Christadelphian, May 1956). Refer to the Time to Heal articles ("The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ" 1939 and "A Time to Heal" 1940).

A number of Shield ecclesias, most notably the Halifax St, Regent Hall and Petrie Tce “Shield” ecclesias, rejected the Victorian Basis for Union and Fellowship because it included the "Time to Heal" articles. They particularly objected to item 5 in the six items of the "Ten Point Statement" of the Time to Heal article of 1940 that sets forth the truth, which is a quotation from bro Roberts in 1873. 

"5. That it was therefore necessary that Jesus should offer for himself for the purging of his own nature, first, from the uncleanness of death, that having by his own blood obtained eternal redemption for himself, he might be able afterward to save to the uttermost those that come unto God by him." Point 83 in Questions and Questions by Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, October 1873

They considered that this clause, (amongst others), resembles the language of bro Andrews teachings. This is illogical and contradicts the obvious fact that bro Roberts actually opposed bro Andrew's teachings. It is difficult to understand how anyone could consider that bro Roberts language in this clause from Questions and Questions could possibly resemble the language of bro Andrews. It is the same language he used when opposing bro Andrews teaching in the Andrews debate, as bro Roberts points out in The Christadelphian September 1894 when he was accused of changing his position. Bro Robert’s beliefs and language in 1873 when opposing Renunciationist Clean Flesh were the same as his beliefs and language when opposing bro Andrews teachings.

Bro Roberts language in this clause from Questions and Questions is the language of the Truth and the Central position on the Atonement. To read into it the language of bro Andrews teachings is to attach "a meaning to bro Roberts words that he did not intend" as bro Carter points out in The Christadelphian, September 1947, see Objections to ‘The Time to Heal’ Articles Answered.

The "Basis for Union and Fellowship" agreed by the Victorian ecclesias in 1953 and “The Time to Heal” articles explicitly oppose the Clean Flesh views that this minority of Shield ecclesias wished to retain in fellowship. Bro John Carter outlined the Central position on the Atonement in The Time to Heal article of 1939 with particular reference to the doctrine of Clean Flesh. It is the same position he outlines in articles reproduced in the Australian Unity Book, including the Cooper Carter Addendum.

"This contention, with modifications, has reappeared more than once since it was first proclaimed in the early 1870s. Brother Roberts met a form of it in the teaching of one Cornish, in answer to whom he drew up a series of propositions which were reproduced in The Christadelphian, December, 1937. It has been revived in certain of its aspects in recent teaching in America, and it appears desirable that the attitude of this Magazine towards this teaching should be once again emphasised." (The Christadelphian, May 1939)

Bro Carter endorsed the The Ten Point Statement in the Time to Heal article of 1940 and defended it against objections raised against it in 1947, (see Objections to Time to Heal 1940 Answered). The Time to Heal article of 1939 references an article bro John Carter wrote to reaffirm the position of The Christadelphian and the Central ecclesias on the Atonement, in which he endorses bro Roberts opposition to the Clean Flesh teachings of bro Cornish in Melbourne, which are very similar to the Shield Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell, (The Christadelphian, December 1937, John Carter).

This minority of Shield ecclesias who retained in fellowship brethren who did not accept the B.A.S.F. are referred to by bro Cooper and bro Carter in their letter to the Adelaide Conference in April 1956, which is exactly the same issue addressed in the Time to Heal article of 1940.

“In our efforts to seek unity and peace in Great Britain brethren abroad have reminded us in various ways of the problems that exist in other lands where there are extensions of the troubles here, aggravated by their own local differences. The citations of utterances such as that the Statement of Faith contains blasphemous assertions, by brethren in Australia who are still retained in association, create great difficulties for us. If we have a duty to avoid putting any stumbling block in your path, is not the duty reciprocal and should not you seek to remove grave hindrances to unity, either by so instructing your members that you can happily declare there is oneness of Faith, or by removing from your association, sad though it may be to have to do it, the teacher of error. “Purge out the old leaven” is apostolic counsel.” (Unity Book p10, A Letter on Unity from England).

Far from accommodating the Shield Clean Flesh doctrine in fellowship, the conditions set for unity by bro Carter and bro Cooper were such that Shield ecclesias were expected to either convert or withdraw fellowship from those who would not accept the scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F. unreservedly.

The Cooper Carter Addendum

The division between Central ecclesias worldwide and Shield ecclesias in Australia in 1904 was because of the Shield ecclesia’s toleration in fellowship of the Clean Flesh doctrine. Clauses 5-12 of the B.A.S.F. were the centre of the dispute and the use of the word “defiled” in clause 5 was one major point of contention.

The Cooper Carter addendum (C.C.A.) was intended to explain what these clauses mean in order to overcome the strife of words and terms that clouded the real doctrinal differences.

“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 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.” (Letter from the Reunion Committee in Great Britain to the recording brethren of all Australian ecclesias dated 4th June 1957, The Christadelphian August 1957)

The Cooper Carter Addendum was intended to uphold the integrity of the scriptural doctrines defined the B.A.S.F. according to the longstanding and consistent Central view held worldwide. This intent was stated in an Appeal Letter from the N.S.W. Unity Committee dated 14th October 1958, working in conjunction with the Unity Committee in Victoria.

“The basis is, we believe, fundamental, and we trust will give a foundation of assurance in any contemplated step. Clause 5 of the Amended Birmingham Statement of Faith has been described, and correctly so, the cause of dispute, and in many of your minds the divergences of belief arising from these differences you believe to be vital. So do we, and the explanations are designed to overcome the technical problems concerned with past disputes, and we believe sufficient to safeguard the truths we cherish, and are also by design short and simple.”

The previous reunions with Central in the U.S.A. in 1940 ("Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ, 1939" and "A Time to Heal, 1940") and 1952 (Jersey City Resolutions) had been on the basis of the scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F. without reservation. In Australia, the basis of the scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F. without reservation understood in harmony with the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.) was no different and was not a change in position on either the doctrines on the atonement or the condition of these as a basis for fellowship. Bro Carter clearly states that the B.A.S.F. was the basis for the reunions he was involved in.

"But a protest must be made at the reckless assertion of the circular (by bro Snelling of Old Paths, UK) that there has been a retreat from the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. This is simply not the case. The proof that it is not true consists in the fact that not only at the Jersey City Conference, whose decisions the circular-writer approved, was the B.A.S.F. defined as a true exposition of the oracles of God, to be believed by us, but in the Final Statement in Britain, and in the Statement for Reunion in Australia, the same affirmation was made. In each case such a statement was made the leading clause in the basis set out for reunion." (The Christadelphian, November 1958)

The explanations on the Atonement given by bro Carter in the Unity Book ("First Report on Unity in Australia" (Unity Book p17), "The Atonement" (Unity Book p25), "Reference to Pioneer Writings" (Unity Book p72) are exactly the same historical worldwide Central position he explained and endorsed in the "Time to Heal" articles in "The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ" 1939 and "A Time to Heal" 1940, and the Jersey City Resolutions in 1952, and his other writings on the Atonement.

The fact that the same historical worldwide Central position on the Atonement and fellowship as these previous reunions, was the basis for reunion in Australia is evidenced by the fact that copies of an address on the Atonement bro Carter gave at the Jersey City Conference in 1952 had been sent to the Shield ecclesias in Australia.

This was stated in the letter from bro Cooper and bro Carter to the Adelaide Conference in April 1956.

“When it is necessary in the interests of definition of a disputed item of doctrine, sound, simple, clear language should be sought and the basic principles set forth. For example, Clauses 5 and 12 of the Statement have been much discussed and we are afraid the doctrines therein set out disputed. We attach an attempt to state in simple, straight language what we think those clauses mean. In addition, an address on these clauses was given at the Jersey City (U.S.A.) Conference four years ago by the request of the delegates, to set out the understanding of the Editor of The Christadelphian on the subject. We understand that the recordings of this address have reached Australia and have been listened to by some among you.” ("A Letter on Unity from England" Unity Book p10).

The scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F. without reservation understood in harmony with the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.) is equivalent to the historical and consistent Central position of the scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F. without reservation. The scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F. without reservation understood in harmony with the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.) did not change the Central position. It did not allow for two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement by accommodating the Clean Flesh doctrine that was still fellowshipped by a minority the Shield ecclesias. 

Bro Carter confirmed his opposition to the Shield Clean Flesh as essential doctrinal error in The Christadelphian, August 1958, when writing about “Dangers Arising Out of Controversy.”

“We mention this because it has already been said that we now advocate what is described as “clean flesh”. This is not true. Neither is it true that in opposing these theories of alienation we have changed our view. We studied the arguments by writers on both sides very carefully forty years ago: we saw then that bro. Roberts’ position was the scriptural one.” (The Christadelphian, August 1958)

Bro Carter stresses that he never accommodated the Clean Flesh doctrine and that he has not changed his view after over forty years of study on the Atonement from the position of bro Roberts that he regarded as the scriptural one.

To suggest otherwise seriously challenges bro Carter’s integrity in drafting and negotiating the Reunion agreement. From his comment above and his expositions at the time recorded in the Unity Book, it is difficult to believe that he would be party to framing an agreement which would allow another doctrine in fellowship.

The Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.) was intended to be read “in harmony with” the B.A.S.F. to supplement it without modifying its meaning. The Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.) did not modify the original meaning of the B.A.S.F. to take into account the Shield Clean Flesh view, or "replace the previous criteria for fellowship." This is an unwarranted interpretation imposed on the Unity Agreement by reading into the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.A.A.) a change in the conditions for fellowship that is not there.

This interpretation of the Unity Agreement as a change to the criteria for fellowship through the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.) is clearly stated in the paper by the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.);

“No renunciation of the propositions of John Bell, J.B.Watson, A.J.Webb or A.E.Harvey were called for, required or given. Many of the assertions about fellowship and salvation levelled by those who opposed the “Shield” brethren were set aside. What seemed to be opposing points of view affecting fellowship between UK and Australia were replaced as far as fellowship was concerned with a memorandum of understanding to which all parties agreed. The acceptance of this understanding replaced the previous criteria for fellowship.” (Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias)

The Doctrinal Differences Between Central Worldwide and Shield

The same paper from the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.) makes the claim that doctrines that had been rejected on the basis of accepting the B.A.S.F. without reservation, were now accepted by the B.A.S.F. understood in harmony with the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.).

“It is important to note that this characteristic Australian position on the effects of sin upon human nature and the relation of Jesus to such effects has been strongly maintained until the present day within the Unity Agreement. This historic and persistent Australian ecclesia view, with a number of related subjects such as no physical change after the sentence in Eden, the possibility of all men being sinless as was Jesus (but never attaining it), was a consistent feature of articles in “The Shield”…

“From these sources it is clear that a consistent, well-argued, Scriptural position had been developed which differed from the CF dogma. Shield brethren maintained

1. no physical change arising out of the fall in Eden

2. mortal flesh is “not given to sin”

3. evil in human beings is not inevitable nor is it impossible for “sinful flesh” to keep the law

4. defilement is of character and not physical

Further it is clear that the editor John Bell was supported in these points of view by, a variety of authors including Bre.A.J. Webb, R.Irving, J.B.Watson, A.E.Harvey.” (Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias)

The same paper goes on to comment about the reunion effort by bro Cooper and bro Carter under the section of “Unity.”

“Both brethren visited Australia separately to come to grips with the reasons behind the Australian objections to some of the expressions of the B.A.S.F.. The solution proposed was not the alteration of the wording of the B.A.S.F. but an addendum by which the disputed passages might be understood taking into account the Australian point of view. There was no requirement to believe that a physical change took place in Eden resulting from the first sin. The Carter/Cooper Addendum statement that human nature is “prone to sin” did not exclude the belief that flesh was not inevitably “given to sin”.

Disputed phrases such as “a sentence which defiles” and “condemned nature” were to be understood in harmony with the Cooper/Carter Addendum. There were to be no implications read into, or restrictions of belief applied beyond, that stated. On this basis, the “Shield” ecclesias accepted the Unity Agreement and fellowship was re-established with CF in the UK.”

“No renunciation of the propositions of John Bell, J.B. Watson, A.J. Webb or A.E. Harvey were called for, required or given. Many of the assertions about fellowship and salvation levelled by those who opposed the “Shield” brethren were set aside. What seemed to be opposing points of view affecting fellowship between UK and Australia were replaced as far as fellowship was concerned with a memorandum of understanding to which all parties agreed. The acceptance of this understanding replaced the previous criteria for fellowship.” (Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias)

This interpretation of the Unity Agreement and Cooper Carter addendum (C.C.A.), as a so-called “memorandum of understanding” that is supposed to allow two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement in fellowship is directly opposed to the historical wordwide Central position that bro Carter upheld. The worldwide Central position is that the Shield Clean Flesh doctrines described in the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.) have always been, and still are, regarded as fundamental error on essential doctrine that cannot be tolerated in fellowship.

However, the paper from the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.) describes accurately the position of the former minority of Shield ecclesias who could not accept the scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F. without reservation as a condition of fellowship. It correctly identifies that they did not regard the differences between these two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement as a matter of fellowship.

“It is important to note that the SSF and the Australian ecclesias who differed with the CF on these doctrinal questions were still prepared to fellowship Central brethren because the differences were not regarded as fundamental to fellowship.” (Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias)

This interpretation of the Unity Agreement and Cooper Carter addendum (C.C.A.), as a so-called “memorandum of understanding” that is supposed to allow two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement in fellowship only served to justify the concerns of those who had been in Central but did not join in with the reunion. They had been concerned that the Shield Clean Flesh doctrine would still be retained in fellowship by some ecclesias after the reunion and so did not join in with it. These became the “Old Paths” fellowship group and are mentioned in the paper by the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.).

“In Australia, a small group of ecclesias that had been in fellowship with CF in UK had opposed the “Shield” ecclesias with extremes of the later Robertsian views. Some of these brethren would not accept the Unity Agreement.” (Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias)

This paper by the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.) portrays Bro Roberts “later views” as “extreme” because these views oppose the Shield Clean Flesh views that this minority of Shield ecclesias had always justified retaining in fellowship.

To refer to these brethren as having “opposed the “Shield” ecclesias with extremes of the later Robertsian views” is an attempt to link bro Roberts later views with the language and terms that bro P.O. Barnard used in some of his writings. But the language and terms bro P.O. Barnard used do not reflect bro Roberts views or the Central position on the Atonement. In fact bro Carter used some of these so-called “extremes of the later Robertsian views” to set out the Central position on the Atonement, and to counter the views of bro P.O. Barnard, which is included in the Unity Book p72, "Reference to Pioneer Writings".

To portray the “later views” of bro Roberts as extreme betrays the fact that this minority of “Shield” ecclesias and brethren had no intention of accepting or conforming to the historical worldwide Central position or accepting the B.A.S.F. which are based solidly on the consistent teachings of bro Roberts. It shows their determination to maintain the old Shield position by postulating that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement in fellowship and justifying this on the basis that bro Roberts and bro Thomas also differed in their views.

The paper by the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.) goes to great lengths to paint “Bro Robert’s later opinions” as being different to bro Thomas’. The paper also tries to discredit the historical worldwide Central position by alleging that bro C.C. Walker tried to "disguise" this so-called "difference" by altering the text of some of bro Thomas’ works. 

“Earlier Bro. Bell had discovered that in reprinting some of Bro. Thomas’ works some of the text had been altered. The first amended reprints had not been marked with footnotes where amended. The alterations had disguised the differences with Bro. Roberts’ later opinions and suppressed the parallels between Bro. Thomas and the Australian position.” (Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias)

Much is made of this in the A.C.C. paper to allege literary fraud and tampering in an underhanded deceitful way by bro C.C. Walker to disguise the truth of the so-called "differences." The the A.C.C. paper states these allegations as a fact, but Bro C.C Walker more than adequately answered the allegations in "Alleged Literary Fraud and Tampering" The Christadelphian, June 1906.

"Dr. Thomas and brother Roberts both advanced to “maturer views” in the course of their careers, and the present editions of Elpis Israel, Christendom Astray, and the smaller works, are more in accordance with these “maturer views,” and therefore with the Scriptures in general, than any editions which have preceded them. This is capable of ample illustration, and is a matter for which the best of the brotherhood are thankful." (Alleged Literary Fraud and Tampering, (The Christadelphian, June 1906)

It should be noted that bro C.C. Walkers alterations have been accepted and included in every subsequent print of the works of bro Thomas and bro Roberts.

The references to “Bro. Roberts’ later opinions” and “extremes of the later Robertsian views” try to imply that bro Roberts changed his mind on the Atonement and became extreme in his later years, and therefore differed from bro Thomas. Bro Carter refuted this notion and quoted from bro Thomas to prove it, when it was suggested to him by some correspondents “to go back to Dr. Thomas” because they disagreed with his reprint of bro Robert’s “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” in The Christadelphian December 1937, which bro Carter had quoted this against the teachings of Clean Flesh.

“In The Christadelphian of December last we reprinted some words written by brother Roberts on “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ.” This was done to set forth once more the teaching of the Bible on a subject upon which there has always been some confusion of thought. The subject is at the heart of most religious controversies, and this is true in connection with the history of the Truth in the last days. The synopsis by brother Roberts was plainly written and well supported by Scripture, and was chosen for these reasons. But we are now exhorted by correspondents, who apparently do not agree with this synopsis, to go back to Dr. Thomas. But a series of propositions which are demonstrated by Scripture quotations takes us back to the final authority on the matter. All that is true in the writings of Dr. Thomas is based on the Word of God, and he would be the first to say, Prove all things by the Scriptures. But what has he to say on the nature of man and Christ’s relationship to that nature?” [Bro Carter then quotes from bro Thomas to prove that he shared the same consistent views as bro Roberts.] (The Christadelphian March 1938).

It is disingenuous to make parallels between “Bro. Thomas and the Australian position” (i.e. Shield Clean Flesh), in view of what bro Carter said above, and in view of bro Bell’s constant criticism of bro Thomas’ writings on the Atonement, which bro C.C. Walker refers to in "The Late Bro Bell and Error" The Christadelphian September 1931, in which he quotes bro G. F. Lake's booklet "The Clean Flesh Heresy" 1924.

It is also disingenuous to suggest that bro Roberts later opinions "differed" to his earlier opinions. This is an attempt to justify differing views in fellowship on Adam’s creation and the consequences of the fall, including Theistic Evolution, on the basis of the narrative that the pioneer brethren had different views on these doctrines so therefore these different views are acceptable in fellowship. 

Supporters of the Shield Clean Flesh view have always mis-quoted some of the early writings of bro Thomas and bro Roberts in support of their views. Bro Carter explains this in Unity Book p72, "Reference to Pioneer Writings", which is reproduced in the Unity Book.

"What then of his quotations from Dr. Thomas and Bro Roberts? The answer is that in every controversy for the last eighty years, both sides have quoted Dr. Thomas, and in the 1890’s Bro. Roberts’ earlier writings were quoted against himself despite his denial of the inferences which were drawn from his earlier writings.

We need not be disturbed at this. It may be admitted that occasionally Dr. Thomas used language that is technical in character and is therefore liable to misuse. We shall show this presently. But that he taught what has been deduced from some of his words we believe can be roundly denied.

... The battle of quotations could be continued indefinitely but although we could parallel those from the earlier controversy (1873-4) with others from the later disputes (1894-5-6) we do not propose to continue the discussion." (Unity Book p72, "Reference to Pioneer Writings")

A well known example of an article that has frequently been mis-used to portray bro Roberts views in a way he did not intend is “The Relation of Christ to the Law of Sin and Death” (The Christadelphian, March 1869). In The Christadelphian, November 1944, bro Carter provides bro Roberts own explanation in 1877 of his meaning in this article to show that his views had remained consistent. Bro Carter rightly comments that “if we want to quote him, we must quote what he says he meant.”

“In the disputations on this subject there has been reference to an article by bro. Roberts in 1869. This article contains some ambiguous expressions, and on more than one occasion “those of a contrary mind” have quoted it. In searching for something else, we have come across an explanation of his meaning in The Christadelphian, 1877, page 471. A man has a right to explain what he meant and to admit the obscurity in his terms; but if we want to quote him, we must quote what he says he meant. Here then is his explanation in 1877.” (The Christadelphian, November 1944).

This narrative that different views on the atonement in fellowship are justified because bro Thomas and bro Roberts had "differing" views is clearly incorrect. This narrative seizes on perceived differences between these pioneer brethren based on selective quotes that are mis-used to insinuate something they did not believe that is not inconsistent with their other writings. A consistent view on the atonement by the pioneer brethren can be easily demonstrated from bro Thomas’ and bro Roberts’ writings, and these are what the historical and consistent worldwide Central position is based on.

A considered view of bro Roberts writings at large shows a consistent view that matured over time. Bro Roberts did not change his views but he certainly refined them after opposing serious error during the Renunicationist Clean Flesh controversy of bro Edward Turney, the Resurrectional Responsibility controversy of J.J. Andrews with its implications on the Atonement, and the teachings of bro Cornish in Melbourne which were the precursor to what would develop into the Shield form of Clean Flesh of bro John Bell.

In response to allegations by the Advocate magazine (by bro J. J. Andrew) that he had “altered his position with regard to the sacrifice of Christ,” bro Roberts demonstrated from his previous writings and his answers on the second night of the debate, that his views expressed in the Andrews debate had remained consistent from the time of the Renunciationist controversy.

“It is a total misapprehension on the part of the Advocate to allege or suggest that we have altered our position with regard to the sacrifice of Christ. We hold absolutely by all we wrote 20 years ago at the time of the Renunciationist controversy. It is all on record for inspection, and the London debate will be found in absolute harmony with it. Where it might for a moment seem otherwise is where we refused to consider the case of Christ apart from the race for whose salvation he was brought into being. The reason for this is explicitly stated in the answers 393, and from 706 to 724—namely, that if there had been no human race to save, there would have been no Christ; and if there had been, he would not have been in the position he stood in as a member of that race. Even in the Renunciationist tussle, we recognised this reasonable distinction (see article in Christadelphian for March, 1875 page 139, the very heading of which is “For himself that it might be for us.”) Run through the Christadelphian for 1874 or 1875, and you will find abundant corroboration of what we now say. If you want particular reference, see Christadelphian, 1873, pages 402–409; also 434 to 468 (The Slain Lamb); Christadelphian for 1874, page 139; also 140–2; and many other places too numerous for citation.” (The Christadelphian, September 1894)

Bro Roberts later refuted accusations that there was any change in the teachings of The Christadelphian “concerning man’s relation to the sin of Adam and Christ’s relation to both” in Has the “Christadelphian” Changed? The Christadelphian December 1894.

Bro Carter also points out bro Roberts consistent view on the sacrifice of Christ when defending the "Ten Point Statement" in the Time to Heal article of 1940 against objections to it by the Buffalo and Philadelphia ecclesias in 1947 (see Objections to Time to Heal 1940 Answered). In the Time to Heal article of 1939 bro Carter endorses bro Robert's opposition to bro Cornish's teachings, which were the precursor to the Shield Clean Flesh beliefs of bro Bell, (see The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ, The Christadelphian December 1937).

"Bro. Roberts’ constant attitude on the subject in dispute from the time of the Renunciationist controversy is to be found in The Law of Moses, chapters 18 (The Consecration of Aaron and His Sone), 27 (Disease), and 28 (Death); The Blood of Christ; and in certain comments and a synopsis reproduced in The Christadelphian, Dec., 1937, which he drew up to meet theories he met in Australia. Of one of these theories to which he was opposed he wrote: “it is a plausible theory to the effect that we do not inherit death from Adam by any physical law, but merely by denial of access to the tree of life; that the sentence of death took no effect on Adam’s body, and therefore is not in ours: that, in fact, we are the ‘very good’ and uncursed Adamic nature that God formed from the ground in the first case; that our nature is not an unclean and sinful nature; that there is no such thing as sin in the flesh, or sinful flesh, or ‘sin that dwelleth in us’.” (The Christadelphian, September 1947)

Any notion of “extremes of the later Robertsian views” are completely baseless and ignore bro Roberts’ own testimony. Bro Roberts wisdom and maturity on the Atonement is evident in his later writings, especially, “The Blood of Christ” and “The Law of Moses” which are regarded in Central as amongst the finest ever written in the brotherhood. The historical Central position on the Atonement is solidly based on the writings of both bro Thomas and bro Roberts, especially the so-called “extremes of the later Robertsian views.”

The important point is that these so-called “extremes of the later Robertsian views,” that were rejected by this minority of Shield brethren, are the very views expressed by bro Carter in many articles as the historical worldwide Central position that formed the basis of reunion, some of which are included in the Unity Book. In fact bro Carter quoted some of these so-called “extremes of the later Robertsain views” to explain the historical worldwide Central position in an article that is included in the Unity Book p72, "Reference to Pioneer Writings". In doing so, bro Carter opposed the Shield Clean Flesh view because the historical Central view bro Carter outlined is incompatible with and opposed to the Shield Clean Flesh view. 

Bro Carter never accommodated the Shield Clean Flesh views and endorsed the position of bro Roberts as the scriptural one based on his study on the arguments on both sides forty years prior to the Australian Unity Agreement in 1958.

“We mention this because it has already been said that we now advocate what is described as “clean flesh”. This is not true... We studied the arguments by writers on both sides very carefully forty years ago: we saw then that bro. Roberts’ position was the scriptural one” (The Christadelphian, August 1958).

The Australian Unity Agreement

The claim that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement is most disingenuous because if it were true, it would mean that the reunion was intended to be a compromise on essential doctrine to achieve union without unity. 

Unfortunately, the Unity Agreement was not fully accepted by all with the result that the error on essential doctrine of the Shield Clean Flesh view that was supposed to have been resolved with the Unity Agreement, actually remained unresolved. The Shield Clean Flesh doctrine continued to be retained in fellowship by a minority of ecclesias.

The Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.) point out in their paper that “No renunciation of the propositions of John Bell, J.B.Watson, A.J.Webb or A.E.Harvey were called for, required or given.” (Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias)

The fact that there is no specific renunciation of the Shield Clean Flesh doctrine in the Australian Unity Agreement or Unity Book is undoubtedly a notable shortcoming, however this omission does not mean that it allowed Shield Clean Flesh as one of two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement in fellowship. Bro Carter's support for the historic and consistent Central position and his opposition to the teachings included in the Shield Clean Flesh doctrine were already on record in his writings.

Unity was meant to be achieved in Australia by the Shield ecclesias accepting the historical worldwide Central position and ending their previous position of tolerating the erroneous Clean Flesh doctrine in fellowship. The Shield ecclesias were to resume fellowship with Central ecclesias worldwide by coming into line with the historical Central position on the atonement and fellowship. The Unity Agreement was a “proposed basis to those ecclesias with whom the “Shield” group sought resumption of fellowship.” (Unity Book p15).

The same happened in Britain with the Suffolk St ecclesias revising their position to come into line with that of Central ecclesias worldwide to adopt the scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F. as a condition of fellowship.

“What are the essentials of saving truth? We have generally recognised that these essentials are formulated in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. Not that other Statements may not also give a true outline but the Birmingham Statement is the one most widely known. It is recognised by all in what we call the Central Fellowship and in the recent discussions in Great Britain it has been acknowledged by both Central and Suffolk Street groups of ecclesias as the one to which all could subscribe as setting out the First Principles of the One Faith.” ("A Letter on Unity from England," John Carter and Cyril Cooper, Unity Book p8)

“… we have pointed out that in recent years the revision of the Rules of the Suffolk Street ecclesia has brought their procedure into line with that of Central ecclesias.” (The Christadelphian, August 1955).

The historical worldwide Central position on doctrine and fellowship remained unchanged and it was the Suffolk St and Shield ecclesias who were to change their position to come into line with the Central position as a basis for reunion. There was no new “memorandum of understanding” that “replaced the previous criteria for fellowship.” The Shield Clean Flesh view on the Atonement was precluded as error in the Unity Agreement and the Shield practice of fellowshipping that error was not accommodated.

The Central fellowship is worldwide and there is not a different basis of fellowship in Australia to the rest of the world. Bro Carter and bro Cooper did not, (and had no authority to), negotiate a different basis of fellowship in Australia to the rest of Central elsewhere in the world, and at no time did the other Central ecclesias throughout the world agree to fellowship Australian ecclesias on a different basis to the worldwide Central basis of fellowship that already existed.

This was point was made by bro Alfred Nicholls in The Christadelphian 1972 when writing about “The Ecclesial Situation in Australia.”

“During the 1950’s there was a movement towards reunion of the “Shield” and “Central” groups which Brother John Carter, by his expositions of the doctrine of the Atonement, both in The Christadelphian and on his visit in 1958, helped to fruition. The way had been prepared by what is now known as the Carter-Cooper Addendum, a joint statement of belief by the brethren named in explanation of the Atonement Clauses (5–12) in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith of which the interpretation had been in dispute. The doctrinal part of the Unity Basis in Australia became the B.A.S.F. with these explanatory clauses, and is in line with the common belief of the Central Fellowship throughout the world.” (The Christadelphian, Sep 1972)

Continued Division Over Shield Clean Flesh

This insistence that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement resulted in divisions not long after the reunion took place, over the very doctrinal issues of Shield Clean Flesh that the reunion was meant to resolve. In February 1988, some 30 years after the reunion, bro Michael Ashton and bro Harry Tennant were invited to Australia to try and help resolve these issues. 

This occurred the year after the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.) issued their paper in February 1987 entitled “The Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias from the Australian Perspective with Reference to the Present Position of Petrie Terrace and Beverly Hills Ecclesias.” Many of the incorrect assertions of the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.) in their paper were addressed in the visit by bro Ashton and bro Tennant. 

In his report, bro Ashton observed that the retention in fellowship of the Shield Clean Flesh doctrine had caused decades of division.

“Consequently, during the ensuing period the Unity agreement itself has rarely been challenged, but unhappily the perfect accord and true fellowship which might have been expected have been enjoyed only in a few parts of the country. Over the years two major groups of ecclesias (not identifiable with the fellowships which were reunited) have been formed in most of the states. … Nevertheless, it is now commonly admitted that within the last two decades, each group has hardened into a polarised position. This originally arose from a disagreement on how to address doctrinal problems…”….

“We were struck by the obvious desire to remove if at all possible any remaining barriers to full fellowship, and by the willingness to identify and eradicate past errors.” …

“In Queensland in particular, doctrinal errors on the nature of man and of the Lord Jesus Christ have for many years been the cause of great concern and breach of relationship. Some brethren have propounded an unacceptable doctrine of the nature of Christ, suggesting that it did not contain the proneness to sin common to all men. Other brethren, in countering these views, have suggested that in his work the Lord Jesus had to atone for his nature.” …

“There is a serious irony in the fact that the different groups claim assent to the same Unity agreement, but have no real unity in practice. The saddest fact of all is that the doctrinal problems which have existed concern the central doctrine of the gospel of truth—the Atonement.” …

“It is to be deplored that, by pressing certain teachings on these exalted subjects—teachings which cannot be supported by Scripture, the faith of the average brother and sister has been disturbed or confused.” (The Christadelphian, April 1988)

It should be noted that later in 1996, the doctrinal differences with the Petrie Tce ecclesia defined in Shield Clean Flesh vs Central Teaching were resolved after lengthy discussions with the Wilston ecclesia over many years. The Petrie Tce ecclesia came into line with the fellowship requirements of the Unity Agreement by accepting the historical Central doctrine on the Atonement and renouncing the Shield Clean Flesh doctrine in “The Twelve Point Statement on the Atonement”. The Petrie Tce ecclesia no longer maintains that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement to include the Shield Clean Flesh doctrine.

Bro Ashton identified that the cause of division was that the Unity agreement had not been properly implemented.

“Extreme views on the implementation and import of the Unity agreement have not assisted the cause of unity. Some brethren have wished to apply it too rigidly, others have wished to reduce its intended impact. For example, it has been insisted that the Statement of Faith is “only a man made document” and therefore is flexible in the doctrines to be accepted. Another view is that the agreement demands acceptance of every word in the Statement of Faith “without reservation”. Both of these attitudes are wrong.

It is not correct to speak of the Statement of Faith disparagingly as merely a “man made document”. It is not a correct definition anyway because it has been framed by brethren, but the attitude displays a serious misunderstanding of the summary of the Scriptural teachings which has bound together brethren throughout the world. However, some brethren have gone so far as to suggest that the Unity agreement (which of course incorporates the Statement of Faith used by Christadelphians throughout the world) specifically allowed two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement to be acceptable in fellowship. It is difficult to see how this understanding could have arisen. Furthermore, we believe this view seriously challenges the integrity of the brethren who were responsible for drafting and negotiating the Reunion agreement. It is impossible to read the transcripts of the addresses given throughout Australia by Brother Carter when these subjects were under discussion and believe that he would be party to framing an agreement which would allow another doctrine in fellowship. Significantly, two of these addresses are printed in the Unity booklet itself, thus showing the importance of this exposition in the process of reunion which took place in 1958.

The Unity agreement also correctly states that it is the doctrines in the Scriptures of truth which are to be received and taught “without reservation”. These doctrines are those epitomised in the Statement of Faith and thus a framework of truth is provided on which baptismal interviews and fellowship discussions can be based.” (The Christadelphian, April 1988)

In response to the idea that the Unity Agreement allowed two separate views on the Atonement in fellowship, bro Ashton made the point that the scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F. is a worldwide Central position as a basis for fellowship that has remain unchanged “since the days of our earliest brethren.”

“to visit various centres in Australia to help in seeing what possibility there may be for greater cooperation between Ecclesias and to set forth the basis of fellowship which applies amongst Christadelphian Ecclesias worldwide.”

“The Statement of Faith …(is)… the summary of the Scriptural teachings which has bound together brethren throughout the world.”

“It was necessary in all the centres which we visited to draw the attention of the brethren to the Scriptural procedures for ecclesial and inter-ecclesial problem solving which, are set out in Brother Roberts’ Ecclesial Guide. These procedures operate elsewhere in the Brotherhood and have proved invaluable time and again in resolving otherwise intractable problems. In substance many parts of The Guide already appear in Ecclesial constitutions and specific clauses are referred to in the Unity agreement. Failure to implement these either in spirit or letter has been the cause of much of the difficulty which exists where whole groups of Ecclesias maintain they are “out of fellowship” with other Ecclesias, even though both groups remain in fellowship with other Ecclesias elsewhere in the world…”

“The purpose of the meetings was to emphasise the basis of fellowship which was prepared in 1958, to explain those provisions which have become subject to some distortion during the intervening years, and to expound various clauses in the Statement of Faith showing how they are understood by the worldwide brotherhood.”

“During our meetings it was shown how accurate in its definitions is each clause of the Statement of Faith, and how closely the clauses are interlinked, becoming dependant on each other in a remarkable way. The brethren were encouraged to re-examine this basis which confirms the doctrinal position upheld by our community since the days of our earliest brethren, and particular emphasis was placed on Clauses 4–12 which set out the crucially important teaching on the Atonement.” (The Christadelphian, April 1988)

The Australian Unity Agreement is no different to the other reunions bro Carter was involved in, which were based on the scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F. as a basis for fellowship. The B.A.S.F. understood in harmony with the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.) did not change the scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F., or change the historical Central fellowship position to specifically allow two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement to be acceptable in fellowship.

The Cooper Carter Addendum (CAA) was designed to clarify what clauses 5 and 12 in the B.A.S.F. meant without changing their original meaning or what was acceptable in fellowship. If there is any doubt as to what the Cooper Carter Addendum (CAA) means it can be found in the articles and comments by bro Carter on the Atonement contained in the Unity Book, "First Report on Unity in Australia" (Unity Book p17), "The Atonement" (Unity Book p25), "Reference to Pioneer Writings" (Unity Book p72). 

These express exactly the same Central position bro Carter outlined in the "Time to Heal" articles, "Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ" (The Christadelphian May 1939) and "A Time to Heal" (The Christadelphian Dec 1940).

Bro Ashton and bro Tennant appealed to the Australian ecclesias to apply the principles of fellowship “honourably and in a brotherly fashion.”

"In summary, the following is the advice which was given to the brethren in the various centres we visited:

1. Ecclesias should faithfully uphold the Unity agreement and be able and willing to show to anyone enquiring that they have done so.

2. Local issues should always be dealt with promptly and thoroughly by the Ecclesias concerned. Delay both increases the problem and sows the seed of further trouble. Only when matters have not been so resolved should brethren from other ecclesias become involved, and in all these discussions the Scriptural provisions of The Ecclesial Guide should faithfully be followed by all parties.

3. The Statement of Faith is the basis of our fellowship within and between Ecclesias, it should be honoured and upheld so as to unite brethren, not to divide them.

4. Nothing should be applied as a test of fellowship between Ecclesias which is an addition to the Statement of Faith and the Unity agreement. Ecclesias should not elevate their own way of doing things in such a way that it can become divisive." 

5. Ecclesias should not group together in any way which can become divisive. Reference to an Ecclesia as belonging to “Shield” or “Logos” can perpetuate an unhealthy division, not necessarily based on doctrinal differences, which would be detrimental to the general good of the Brotherhood in Australia. (The Christadelphian, April 1988)

This advice is as relevant today as it was in 1988 and is applicable for situations when an ecclesia wilfully retains in fellowship brethren with serious error on essential doctrines that conflict with the scriptural teaching defined in the B.A.S.F. and the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.). The resolution of such an issue with the Petrie Terrace ecclesia in Brisbane by some of the local ecclesias is a good example of this advice being put into practice.

Ecclesias should fulfil their responsibilities and deal with such issues in their locality promptly and thoroughly following the Scriptural provisions of the Ecclesial Guide. Leaving these issues unresolved increases the problem and compromises the fellowship of other ecclesias because it enables departure "from any element of the One Faith, either in doctrine or practice" to be wilfully tolerated in fellowship.

Fellowship Clauses in the Australian Unity Agreement

The Fellowship clauses in the Australian Unity Agreement reflect the historical and consistent Central position on fellowship throughout the world. They put the primary responsibility on each ecclesia to deal with any departure from any element of the One Faith that may arise in its midst.

“(a) Where any brethren depart from any element of the One Faith, either in doctrine or practice, they shall be dealt with according to the Apostolic precept and that extreme action would be ecclesial disfellowship of the offender. (Matt. 18: 15-17; Titus 3: 10-11.)” (Unity Book p14).

In the event of the offending brethren being unrepentant, “extreme action would be ecclesial disfellowship of the offender.” This is in keeping with The Ecclesial Guide 32. Sin and Withdrawal and 36. Individual Offences, which is referred to in clause (c) of the Fellowship clauses in the Unity Book.

“(c) The course of action necessitated by the above clauses (a) and (b), will be regulated by the principles of the Scripture and follow the spirit of the Ecclesial Guide, Sections 32, 41 and 42.” (Unity Book p15)

The terms of the Unity Agreement is that each ecclesia is to faithfully fulfil its responsibilities to preserve the Truth in its midst. Ecclesias have a responsibility to other ecclesias to do this so there will be no error in the fellowship group. Where an ecclesia fails to fulfil its responsibilities in this regard and tolerates error in fellowship, it has failed in its responsibility to other ecclesias by compromising the basis of fellowship and breaking the Unity Agreement.

It is therefore not right or faithful for an ecclesia to wilfully tolerate “departure from any element of the One Faith either in doctrine or practice” in any of it’s members and not withdraw fellowship from brethren in error after efforts to recover them in the spirit of Matt 18 have failed. 

Bro Cooper and bro Carter made this expectation quite clear in their letter on unity to the Adelaide Conference in 1956.

“Here perhaps we may be permitted to speak plainly. In our efforts to seek unity and peace in Great Britain brethren abroad have reminded us in various ways of the problems that exist in other lands where there are extensions of the troubles here, aggravated by their own local differences. The citations of utterances such as that the Statement of Faith contains blasphemous assertions, by brethren in Australia who are still retained in association, create great difficulties for us. If we have a duty to avoid putting any stumbling block in your path, is not the duty reciprocal and should not you seek to remove grave hindrances to unity, either by so instructing your members that you can happily declare there is oneness of Faith, or by removing from your association, sad though it may be to have to do it, the teacher of error. “Purge out the old leaven” is apostolic counsel.” …

“We take, then, this opportunity to ask your co-operation in the pursuit of peace and unity of those of like mind. If the Lord could hold against a first century ecclesia that they held a doctrine which he hated, or suffered those who held such a doctrine, we see how seriously he views some things. Surely none of us would adopt a position where He would have to say it of us. As, therefore, we hear reports of vocal protagonists of things which are not believed amongst us, making also stout charges against things we do believe, might we ask you to help us either by removing those brethren who make discord and division by their words, or by showing (after enquiry) that the charges made against them are not true. We feel sure that by so doing you will greatly help the cause of truth throughout the world and the work of peace in ecclesias of your land and of ours.” (Unity Book p8, "A Letter on Unity from England")

The fellowship clauses in the Unity Agreement do not provide for the wilful toleration in fellowship by any ecclesia of “departure from any element of the One Faith either in doctrine or practice” including Shield Clean Flesh. Retaining brethren in association with the error of Shield Clean Flesh was a cause of great difficulty to reunion and ecclesias were expected to reform or remove them.

Ecclesial Autonomy

Ecclesias have a responsibility to other ecclesias to preserve the Truth in their midst, so ecclesial autonomy is not licence to tolerate error. This has always been the historical and consistent Central position on fellowship and was the basis for the previous reunions bro Carter had been involved in. At the time of the reunion in 1958, this historic Central position had only been recently stated by bro Carter.

Only eight years before the reunion bro Carter wrote;

“Support is sought for the theory that ecclesial action is not scriptural from allusions in the Letters to the Seven Churches. It is said that false teaching existed in these churches but the Lord did not require the faithful to separate from the unfaithful. This seems a strange argument. We cannot suppose that the Lord would in his own letters require a different course of action from what the Spirit had required through Paul’s letters. But why does the Lord find fault? Was it not because the doctrine of Balaam was tolerated, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes? If the ecclesias had applied the instructions in Paul’s letters they would not be blameworthy. We might note further that the Lord addresses the “angel” of the church on behalf of the churches. The appeal and the rebuke is to the community in each place; and while each church is severally addressed, to each the warning is added that “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”. While the faults of Ephesus are particularized in the letter to that church, the warning is for all others.” (The Christadelphian, Dec 1950)

Only five years before the reunion bro Carter wrote;

“Ecclesias are autonomous, and it is a principle to be jealously guarded that ecclesias manage their own affairs. But that does not mean that an ecclesia can tolerate or eschew any belief or conduct without regard to other ecclesias. Individuals have free wills, but that does not mean they can do as they wish. To live in society imposes limitations, and when a man joins any society there inevitably follow restrictions on personal freedom. In city life the pedestrian has the security of appointed street crossings only by accepting the restriction that he shall cross when the “lights” permit, and the motorist limits his freedom and honours the restriction to “stop”. On a moorland path a solitary walker moves as he will, but restraints are inevitable in social life. It is not less so in ecclesial life.

The basis of fellowship is the common acceptance of certain beliefs which are called “The Truth” or “The Faith”; but these beliefs need definition to ensure that understanding is sufficiently uniform. Hence we must have a Statement of Faith; and while it would be within the province of each ecclesia to draw up its own, it is obvious that some brethren have greater skill than others in formulating a doctrine. There is something to be said for a uniform statement, widely accepted, even on the grounds of the efficient formulation of the things believed. There may, too, be circumstances when a well-recognized Statement may be used as a touchstone to establish that two ecclesias hold identical views, particularly when there has been recognized divergence on the part of one ecclesia or even doubt about its position. The use of a Statement in this way implies no exaltation of a Statement above the Scriptures, but a wise use of it as an instrument for a special purpose.

It is sometimes said in support of an unregulated freedom for every individual ecclesia that the Lord dealt with the faults and virtues of each in his letters to the churches. This is true, but it is sometimes overlooked that the seven letters were sent as one document to all the churches, and not as separate letters to each church, and each contained the counsel that “if a man have ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”. The letter to Smyrna, while dealing with Smyrna’s affairs, had lessons for the other six; and so with each letter. While there was individual responsibility on the part of each ecclesia, this was a collective responsibility of its members (“if any man have ears to hear”); and the individual ecclesia was not without some relationship to the ecclesias as a whole (“hear what the Spirit saith to the churches”).” (The Christadelphian, Oct 1953)

This was also made clear by bro Cooper and bro Carter in their letter on unity to the Adelaide Conference in 1956, only two years before the reunion.

“We have an ecclesial responsibility to the Lord, in Adelaide, in Melbourne, in Sydney, or in any other place. And that responsibility is ours in our own ecclesia. We must have the right of judging the position of our members, with their weaknesses and idiosyncrasies and in doubtful cases each ecclesia must decide. While this belongs to us (and we should see that none takes it from us) we have a duty to other ecclesias. While an individual ecclesia, we are also a part of the One Ecclesia—the Church, and our duty to other ecclesias is to preserve on our part the Truth and let the light shine unobscured by vain speculations. But the converse is sadly true—if an ecclesia willfully and persistently preaches error, how can we avoid responsibility except by disclaiming association? If this principle has on occasion been pressed too far, we must not therefore fail to give it its proper place.” (Unity Book p8, "A Letter on Unity from England")

This letter explains the meaning and intent behind the fellowship clauses (a) and (b) in the Unity Agreement. The “converse” of an ecclesia faithfully preserving the Truth in its midst is termed as an ecclesia that “wilfully and persistently preaches error” by tolerating it in fellowship. These are the only two positions described and there is no in-between position.

In the terms of the Unity Agreement therefore, an ecclesia is either faithfully preserving the truth in its midst, or it is wilfully preaching error. If an ecclesia retains in fellowship a brother "departing from any element of the faith" they have adopted a position of supporting false doctrine and are effectively “preaching and propagating” it by allowing its influence to remain, even if they require such members to not promulgate the false doctrine. All members are responsible for that and are therefore “preachers of the word” that their position supports.

"If a brother departing from an element of the faith retains membership, either he accepts an imposed silence which is doubtfully justifiable; or, there is diversity of teaching. Since, however, all members of an ecclesia are preachers of the word, diversity would seem to be inevitable. But the apostle enjoins that all speak the same things that there be no division among the brethren (1 Cor. 1:10)." (The Christadelphian, March 1948)

This explains the meaning and intent behind clause (b) of the fellowship clauses.

“(b) If it is established that an ecclesia sets itself out by design to preach and propagate at large, false doctrine, then it would become necessary to dissociate from such an ecclesia.” (Unity Book p15).

An ecclesia that does not fulfil fellowship clause (a) to faithfully preserve the Truth on its part but tolerates error in fellowship has broken and compromised the agreed basis of fellowship. Fellowship clause (b) then applies because that ecclesia has failed in its duty to other ecclesias to preserve the Truth on its part and has adopted a position of supporting false doctrine or practice in doing do. It is effectively preaching and propagating false doctrine by allowing its influence to remain and should therefore expect disruption in their relationship with other ecclesias. 

They should expect the nearest ecclesias to initiate a process of restoration and recovery with them in the spirit on Matt 18. Dissociation from such an ecclesia would be a last resort after a proper process of restoration and recovery in the spirit of Matt 18 by the nearest ecclesias has failed.

The Central position did not change with the Australian Unity Agreement. Reunion in Australia was to be effected on the basis of the historical worldwide Central position on fellowship that had only been recently stated by bro Carter prior to 1958 and was the basis for the previous reunions he had been involved in. The Shield practice of fellowshipping the erroneous doctrine of Clean Flesh was precluded..

The wording of clause (b) in the Australian Unity Agreement is very similar to bro Carter’s explanation of the historical Central fellowship position in 1945.

“If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching wrong doctrine, or in retaining in fellowship those who so do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming association. In matters of doubt, where it is a question of judgment of fact, ecclesial decisions must be respected, as the Guide and the Constitution provide. But when there is grave error in doctrine or practice, an ecclesia has the duty of loyalty to the Truth, and it is recognized among us that by the Truth is meant the definition of doctrine in the Statement of Faith. If an ecclesia fail in such loyalty, other ecclesias cannot co-operate without complicity. Harmony in essentials has ceased to exist, and behind a facade of union there is really disunity. Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth; when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience.” (The Christadelphian July 1945)

The same similarity of wording is seen in the reunion agreement outlined in the Jersey City Resolutions in 1952, only six years before the Australian Unity Agreement.

“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.

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.” (Jersey City Resolutions)

The same principle of withholding fellowship when error is taught and the doctrines commonly believed are not subscribed to was expressed in the "Time to Heal" articles which formed the basis of reunion in the U.S.A. in 1940.

"We believe the Statement of Faith to be the best compiled to set out the teaching of the Scriptures. We accept it without reservation and believe it sets forth the minimum that should be believed as a basis of fellowship. As concerning The Christadelphian and fellowship, we have declared that we do not knowingly publish Intelligence from ecclesias who do not accept the teaching set out in the Statement of Faith. We believe that if a man or woman changes their belief it is the honourable course to say so, and resign from fellowship. It is not less so when ecclesias do not subscribe to the doctrines which are commonly believed among us, and which are accepted as the basis upon which fellowship and co-operation can be maintained.

... It is a duty to withhold fellowship when error is taught; it is a duty to extend fellowship when “all speak one thing”. (The Christadelphian, December 1940, John Carter)

The Central position did not change with the Australian Unity Agreement. Bro Carter and bro Cooper did not, (and had no authority to), negotiate a different basis of fellowship in Australia to the rest of Central elsewhere in the world, and at no time did the other Central ecclesias throughout the world agree to fellowship Australian ecclesias on a different basis to the worldwide Central basis of fellowship that already existed. 

The intent and meaning of clause (b) in the fellowship clauses of the Unity Agreement is therefore consistent with the historical worldwide Central position on fellowship. Ecclesias have a responsibility to dissociate from an ecclesia that willfully tolerates error after a proper process of restoration and recovery in the spirit of Matt 18 has failed. 

The Ecclesial Guide

This is proved by the fact that the fellowship clauses in the Unity Agreement are to follow the scriptural principles in the spirit of the Ecclesial Guide, which outlines the historical Central position on fellowship.

“(c) The course of action necessitated by the above clauses (a) and (b), will be regulated by the principles of the Scripture and follow the spirit of the Ecclesial Guide, Sections 32, 41 and 42.” (Unity Book p15)

The Ecclesial Guide does not support the concept of tolerating error in fellowship by an ecclesia which is clear from 32. Sin and Withdrawal and 36. Individual Offences, The Ecclesial Guide. Ecclesias have a responsibility to faithfully preserve the Truth in their midst. The Ecclesial Guide supports the historical and consistent Central position that an ecclesia that wilfully persists in retaining in fellowship those with false doctrine should be dissociated from. 

The Ecclesial Guide states that the bond of union between ecclesias is the one faith and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is clear that if differences concerning this bond of union arise between ecclesias they should be dealt with on the same principles as individual offences against the Truth as outlined in 36. Individual Offences and 32. Sin and Withdrawal.

“42. Ecclesias in Relation One to Another … The bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is nothing less than a calamity when rupture on secondary issues sets in, where these other conditions of union exist.”

“37. Ecclesial Differences … These are different from individual offences, and yet they stand nearly related to these, and are best dealt with by the same general rule that Christ lays down for them.” (Ecclesial Guide)

This is the historical and consistent Central position based on Scripture that bro Carter outlined in The Christadelphian of 1945, only 13 years before the Australian reunion.

"If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching wrong doctrine, or in retaining in fellowship those who so do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming association. In matters of doubt, where it is a question of judgment of fact, ecclesial decisions must be respected, as the Guide and the Constitution provide. But when there is grave error in doctrine or practice, an ecclesia has the duty of loyalty to the Truth, and it is recognized among us that by the Truth is meant the definition of doctrine in the Statement of Faith. If an ecclesia fail in such loyalty, other ecclesias cannot co-operate without complicity. Harmony in essentials has ceased to exist, and behind a facade of union there is really disunity. Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth; when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience. 

The spirit in Peter writing of Israel says, “But there were false prophets also among the people even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them” (2 Pet. 2:1). How were such false prophets to be treated? Moses says they “shall be put to death” (Deut.13:5). Even a “brother,” “son,” “daughter,” “wife,” or “friend,” who attempted to introduce idolatry was not to be spared (Deut.13:6-11). The object was that Israel might be purged of evil. Communities were to be dealt with on the same principle as individuals. If it were reported that any one city had commenced to “serve other gods” (Deut.13:12,13) “then,” said Moses, “shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you, thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein” (Deut.13:14,15).

The comparison drawn in Peter’s epistle between false teachers in fleshly Israel and spiritual Israel is evidence that this Mosaic enactment contains a lesson for us. The use of sword or anything destructive is out of the question; a practical protest by refusing to fellowship is the full extent of permitted action. The command to “enquire” is not at variance with New Testament injunction; it is in harmony with it. When, therefore, it is reported that any brother or ecclesia is following false doctrine, it is not only permitted, but it is obligatory on other brethren and ecclesias, to “enquire and make search, and ask diligently,” to see whether it be true and the thing certain. If it is, the responsibility of their position leaves no option but that of repudiating complicity with the evil." (The Christadelphian July 1945)

Block Disfellowship

Withdrawal of fellowship from an ecclesia under these circumstances is very different to "Block Disfellowship", as bro Alfred Nicholls points out in The Christadelphian September 1982. He defines “Block Disfellowship” as when “a group of brethren or ecclesias has withdrawn from another ecclesia over what is in their opinion some error of doctrine or more usually of practice and then withdrawn from all other ecclesias who do not support that judgement, on the ground that the latter are involved in the sin of the first ecclesia.”

"To put the matter in perspective" bro Nicholls cites bro John Carter from 1945 above in support of this in (The Christadelphian September 1982)

"In the above article Brother Whittaker has drawn attention to the question of withdrawal from ecclesias. It has happened more than once that a group of brethren or ecclesias has withdrawn from another ecclesia over what is in their opinion some error of doctrine or more usually of practice and then withdrawn from all other ecclesias who do not support that judgement, on the ground that the latter are involved in the sin of the first ecclesia. This is sometimes known as “block disfellowship” and clearly has no sanction in Scripture.

However, sometimes the circumstances are such as to challenge the judgement of other ecclesias and require their decision. To put the matter in perspective we offer the following extract from an Editorial Note on “Inter-Ecclesial Responsibility” (The Christadelphian, July 1945): “… ecclesias have a duty to make rules regulating their procedure in harmony with the principles of ecclesial life laid down by the apostles. And ecclesias are related to each other as members of the body of Christ. While the Lord rebuked each of the seven Churches for its faults, he added to each of the letters to the Churches that he that hath an ear should hear what he said, for what he said was intended for all to hear. The rebuke of one was a warning to all to avoid the evil rebuked. If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching wrong doctrine, or in retaining in fellowship those who do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming association. In matters of doubt, where it is a question of judgment of fact, ecclesial decisions must be respected, as the Guide and the Constitution provide. But when there is grave error in doctrine or practice, an ecclesia has a duty of loyalty to the Truth, and it is recognised among us that by the Truth is meant the definition of doctrine in the Statement of Faith. If an ecclesia fail in such loyalty, other ecclesias cannot co-operate without complicity. Harmony in essentials has ceased to exist, and behind a facade of union there is really disunity. Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth: when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience.” (The Christadelphian September 1982)

Contradictory Views on the Fellowship Clauses

Clause (b) of the fellowship clauses in the Unity Agreement has not always been understood correctly in the way it was clearly intended.

“(b) If it is established that an ecclesia sets itself out by design to preach and propagate at large, false doctrine, then it would become necessary to dissociate from such an ecclesia.” (Unity Book p15).

1. There is a view that clause (b) allows for an ecclesia that wilfully tolerates error to remain in fellowship, as long as it requires its members with error not to promulgate it. 

2. There is also a view that clause (b) only applies if an ecclesia adopts false doctrine as its position and does not apply where an ecclesia assents to the Unity Agreement but retains some members in its fellowship who hold false doctrine.

3. There is a view that ecclesias are autonomous and if an ecclesias chooses to retain some members in its fellowship who hold false doctrine other ecclesias must accept it in fellowship, even if they don’t agree with it, as long as the ecclesia officially assents to the Unity Agreement.

These views about clause (b) cannot be correct for the following reasons;

• These views would make clause (b) contradict clause (a) and make it acceptable for an ecclesia to not uphold clause (a). An ecclesia that does not uphold clause (a) has already broken the Unity Agreement and compromised the basis of fellowship with other ecclesias.

• These views would make clause (b) also contradict clause (c) that says clause (b) should be "regulated by the principles of the Scripture and follow the spirit of the Ecclesial Guide." The Ecclesial Guide says that the bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord. Any ecclesial differences on such matters should be handled by the same principles as individual offences. If a whole ecclesia wilfully retains error in fellowship after a proper effort to recover and restore them by other ecclesias has failed, then all the members of that ecclesia are responsible for breaking the fundamental scriptural principle to not tolerate error in fellowship and should therefore be dissociated from.

• Ecclesial autonomy does not mean an ecclesia can tolerate false doctrine in fellowship without consequences in its relationship with other ecclesias. Ecclesias are related to each other and have a responsibility to other ecclesias to uphold the “reception of the one faith” as a basis of fellowship between themselves. An ecclesia that wilfully tolerates false doctrine has already adopted a position of supporting false doctrine and is effectively “preaching and propagating” it by allowing its influence to remain even if they require such members not to promulgate it. Other ecclesias have a responsibility to dissociate from an ecclesia that continues to wilfully tolerate false doctrine.

• These views are inconsistent with the historical and consistent Central position on fellowship expressed in the Ecclesial Guide and The Christadelphian magazine. These views imply that the worldwide Central position changed or that Australia has a unique position to the rest of the Central worldwide group, which are incorrect. These views are however consistent with the Shield fellowship position on fellowship that allowed ecclesias to retain brethren with error in fellowship. 

A Difference in Essential Doctrine or Judgment of Fact?

The ecclesias who claim that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement effectively operate on a different basis of fellowship to the majority of Central ecclesias in Australia who only accept the historical Central view on the Atonement as defined in the B.A.S.F.

This minority of ecclesias and brethren do not consider the two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement as a difference in essential doctrine that is a condition of fellowship, but as a difference in judgment of fact that should not be a condition of fellowship.

They claim that The Ecclesial Guide 42. Ecclesias in Relation One to Another applies in this case despite the fact that these separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement represent a serious difference in essential doctrine. The Shield Clean Flesh doctrine always has been, and still is, regarded in Central as error in essential doctrine that cannot be tolerated in fellowship.

The Australian Unity Agreement did not change this historical Central position in Australia or anywhere else in the Central world. The notion that there is a different “memorandum of understanding in Australia” has no basis of fact and would be inconsistent. Such a change in the Central basis of fellowship was never agreed to by Central ecclesias overseas, as they would be expected to fellowship some Australian brethren on a different basis to what they have always had.

The Shield Clean Flesh doctrine, that has always been regarded in Central throughout the world as error on essential doctrine not to be fellowshipped, did not become acceptable in fellowship throughout Central overnight in 1958 because of the Australian Unity Agreement.

Shield Clean flesh doctrines, such as those listed in the paper issued by the Australian Christadelphian Committee (A.C.C.), are differences in essential doctrine not a judgment of fact.

1. no physical change arising out of the fall in Eden

2. mortal flesh is “not given to sin”

3. evil in human beings is not inevitable nor is it impossible for “sinful flesh” to keep the law

4. defilement is of character and not physical

(Historical Relationship of UK and Australian Ecclesias)

Yet some brethren and ecclesias claim to assent to the Unity Agreement while wilfully tolerating false doctrine and practice. For example, the Halifax St ecclesia maintain that “a brother can hold views contrary to any one or more of Salisbury's 4 points and still conscientiously and validly assent to the Unity Agreement…

1. Adam's nature was mortal and biased to sin (like current humans) before the fall;

2. There was no change in Adam's nature as a consequence of his transgression;

3. Contemporary evolved humans were coexisting with Adam and Eve at creation, and

4. Not all humans have descended from Adam”

(Statement of Outcomes: Adelaide-Salisbury meeting 20 August 2020)

The implications of this with the latest resurgence of Theistic Evolution are obvious and demonstrate how Theistic Evolution is incompatible with the scriptural teaching defined in the B.A.S.F. as a condition of fellowship.

This makes such an assent to the Unity Agreement hollow and meaningless. This is not an assent to the agreed basis of fellowship, but to a different basis of fellowship that has not been agreed to, which is the old "Shield" basis of fellowship that is precluded by the Unity Agreement. It effectively legitimises the toleration of false doctrine in fellowship under the guise of unity where there is division on essential doctrine. This is union without unity. As bro Ashton observed;

"There is a serious irony in the fact that the different groups claim assent to the same Unity agreement, but have no real unity in practice. The saddest fact of all is that the doctrinal problems which have existed concern the central doctrine of the gospel of truth—the Atonement.” (The Christadelphian, April 1988)

Ecclesias who maintain that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement attempt to avoid scrutiny by demanding that their assent to the Unity Agreement be accepted without question, using legalistic wording for the basis of fellowship at joint events such as “fellowship is extended on the basis of the “Unity Agreement without addition or further explanation”.

The only way that The Ecclesial Guide "42. Ecclesias in Relation One to Another", has any application to those who maintain that that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement, is that the “reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord” is no longer the “bond of union” between ecclesias.

Bro Carter expressed the worldwide Central position of fellowship regarding ecclesias who are not loyal to the truth defined in the B.A.S.F.;

“If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching wrong doctrine, or in retaining in fellowship those who so do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming association. In matters of doubt, where it is a question of judgment of fact, ecclesial decisions must be respected, as the Guide and the Constitution provide. But when there is grave error in doctrine or practice, an ecclesia has the duty of loyalty to the Truth, and it is recognized among us that by the Truth is meant the definition of doctrine in the Statement of Faith. If an ecclesia fail in such loyalty, other ecclesias cannot co-operate without complicity. Harmony in essentials has ceased to exist, and behind a facade of union there is really disunity. Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth; when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience.” (The Christadelphian July 1945).

To maintain a position that the Unity Agreement allows two separate views on the doctrine of the Atonement is itself a breach of the Unity Agreement. Only the historical and consistent Central view on the Atonement is acceptable in fellowship which is the scriptural doctrines defined in the B.A.S.F. The Unity Agreement precludes the Shield Clean Flesh view on the Atonement being retained in fellowship because it is an opposing view that is erroneous.

The intent of the Australian Unity Agreement was to resolve the doctrinal differences caused by these two separate views on the Atonement that had been the cause of division between the Central and Shield ecclesias. The basis of this was the One Faith as revealed in the scriptures defined in the B.A.S.F. understood in harmony with the Cooper Carter Addendum. 

If any clarification is required of what the “the B.A.S.F. understood in harmony with the Cooper Carter Addendum (C.C.A.)” is intended to mean, the explanations of the on the Atonement by bro Carter included in the Unity Book will confirm that only the historical Central view is acceptable and that the Shield Clean Flesh view is precluded, "First Report on Unity in Australia" (Unity Book p17), "The Atonement" (Unity Book p25), "Reference to Pioneer Writings" (Unity Book p72). These express the same position as bro Carter's other writings on the Atonement.