The Christadelphian November 2009, The Committee of The Christadelphian

“What is a Christadelphian?”

This is a question usually asked by people who have not previously had contact with us. But there is benefit in us addressing it as well, so that we understand exactly what is entailed. The ‘Christadelphian’ name was originally coined in 1864 to identify a group of believers whose consciences were exercised by the message of the Gospel to seek exemption from military service during the American Civil War. They made the application because the scriptures teach that baptism creates a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ: men and women become spiritually his brothers and sisters, and members of God’s family. Believers are responsible to Him and recognise that He rules in the kingdom of men, setting up and removing governments in accordance with His purpose.

Another reason for needing a distinctive name was that the beliefs of our American brothers and sisters differed radically from those of others who also claimed a relationship with the Lord. One obvious difference was the attitude towards the government and the state, but there were others that were so distinctly different in important areas that there was no common cause with any existing religious group.

Defining the faith

The grounds for these beliefs were found in the inspired scriptures, but as these were also quoted by people who arrived at radically different conclusions, it was quickly apparent that it was not sufficient simply to say that Christadelphians believe only what the Bible teaches. A description of the distinctive understanding of Christadelphians was also needed to explain our existence as a separate community. The Apostle in Hebrews 6 described the doctrine of “the first principles of Christ” (verse 1, RV) as the sure foundation on which Christian lives can be built, so from the earliest days Christadelphians have described their understanding of “first principle” Bible teachings which we believe to be saving truths and therefore the basis on which our fellowship together must be founded.

A century and a half has passed since the name Christadelphian was first used, and the Christadelphian faith has been summarised on numerous occasions and using different words, but all of these summaries have tried faithfully to represent the brotherhood’s common understanding of the One Faith as revealed in the scriptures. By accepting this Faith and by submitting to it in baptism, men and women enter God’s family and become “Baptized Believers in the Gospel of the Kingdom of God” and a “Royal Association of Believers” – to mention two descriptions used by the body of believers before the name Christadelphian became widely accepted.

A statement of the faith

As the years passed and certain challenges arose to first principle Bible teachings, the summaries of Gospel truth were refined, usually with the object of clarifying the brotherhood’s beliefs. For over a hundred years, a widely used summary has been accepted as a faithful description of Bible teaching “concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12). This summary first formed the Statement of Faith of the ecclesia in Birmingham, England, and was quickly and widely used as a model by other ecclesias for their own statements of faith. Briefly, it comprises three parts. The first part lists the foundational Bible teachings believed by Christadelphians. In order to show some of the implications of these beliefs, the second part lists teachings widely accepted in the religious world that are not supported by the scriptures. Finally, because what a person believes must influence the way he or she lives, there is a list of some of the leading features of the Lord’s commandments for daily living. [1]

These three elements are well illustrated by the actions of the American brothers and sisters in 1864. They fervently believed that the scriptures teach, “That God will set up a kingdom in the earth, which will overthrow all others, and change them into ‘the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ’” (BASF, clause 19). They equally fervently denied, “That we are at liberty to serve in the army …” (Doctrine to be Rejected 35). And they sought to follow the teachings of Jesus and his apostles: “Resist not evil … avenge not yourselves … confess Christ freely before men … follow peace with all men” (extracts from the “Commandments of Christ”).

Objections to the statement

This same faith should be the hallmark of Christadelphians today, yet it is apparent that there are some in the brotherhood who have problems with the BASF.

1. For some, the statement of faith is too restrictive because it denies association with those who do not hold to all first principle Bible teachings, or who understand some of those teachings differently from the way we understand them.

2. Some brothers and sisters do not think the statement of faith goes far enough, and use additional factors as a test of fellowship. [2]

3. The actual wording of the statement of faith creates problems in the minds of some, leading them to deny its value and either prepare an alternative statement, or even to suggest that nothing other than the wording in the scriptures is needed.

4. Others focus so closely on the wording of the statement of faith that they do not consider that first principle teachings can be expressed using any other words.

All of these positions can create difficulties. As already indicated, the distinctiveness of Christadelphian beliefs must be expressed in order to clarify why there can be no association with those who believe differently. Yet those distinctive Bible teachings can be described in many different forms of words, and sometimes there may be specific local circumstances that require further explanation of certain doctrines. Such a situation arose in Australia when groups of ecclesias that previously were separated came together in 1958. A clarification of clauses 5 and 12 of the BASF greatly helped to unite the two groups. [3]

A faithful definition

Even though each ecclesia has its own statement of faith (sometimes with wording produced locally), ecclesias are part of the Central fellowship because they recognise the BASF as a faithful description of the One Faith. It is therefore a very serious matter if a brother or sister cannot accept the teachings listed in the statement of faith. We do not simply accept that these doctrines are based on the scriptures, but that they are first principle teachings, and therefore provide solid ground on which there can be fellowship with other believers. We do not fellowship anyone who believes differently about these critical teachings, anyone who does not treat them as first principles, or anyone who wants to add further doctrines as tests of fellowship.

Criticisms of the wording of the statement of faith generally take three forms. In the first case, some of the doctrines in the statement are not believed; secondly it is alleged that the wording is obscure or difficult to understand and accept; and lastly it is claimed that the statement is silent about the most important Bible teachings. In each case, the whole statement is often rejected as unsatisfactory. An example of wording sometimes considered to be obscure is the Doctrine to be Rejected, “That Christ was born with a ‘free life’”. This definition arose from a controversy that severely troubled the brotherhood in the 1870s, but it refers to the false teaching that Jesus did not fully share the mortal, sin-prone nature of all mankind. [4] Another Doctrine to be Rejected denies, “that ‘heathens’, idiots, pagans, and very young children will be saved”. This language also betrays the era when the statement of faith was compiled, for “idiots” is an archaic term referring to someone incapable of grasping the Gospel message. As these examples show, there is no need to reject the statement of faith if the teachings it describes are accepted, even if a brother or sister finds some of the wording difficult.

If another statement was produced listing the same Bible teachings, but using different words, it would be subject to all the same criticisms. For we cannot apply the same level of scrutiny to the wording of a summary of beliefs prepared by fallible human beings, as we rightly apply to the inspired scriptures. Our focus should be firmly on the Bible teachings that are listed in the statement of faith, more than on the words that have been selected to describe those teachings. For it is unreasonable to say that our faith can be described only in one, unalterable form of words. This view completely misses the point, for what makes a person a Christadelphian is his or her acceptance of first principle Bible teachings, rejection of many commonly held religious views, and most importantly a way of life that reflects as closely as possible the pattern set by our Lord.

The grace of God

Those who claim that the statement of faith does not mention important Bible teachings say that it never mentions subjects such as “grace” or “love”. What this actually reveals is that the critic has a different understanding of Bible teaching on these subjects. Grace – God’s gift to undeserving mankind, is revealed through the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ and the redemption made possible by his sacrifice. As a consequence of faith and baptism, men and women can be cleansed from their sins and related to his perfect life, both now and when he returns. These teachings are very clearly described in the statement of faith, explaining not only God’s grace, but also His love to men and women. The response of those who are being saved through the work of Christ is to show the same love and grace to others. This too is included in the statement of faith in the list of the Lord’s commands to his disciples.

Inclusive or exclusive?

The greatest difficulties, however, arise from two radically divergent criticisms that are strongly asserted by those who support them. These are positions 1 and 2 as listed above. On one hand some seek to make the Christadelphian faith more inclusive – which can only be achieved by reducing the range of first principle teachings, making it only partially a Christadelphian faith. Areas of Bible teaching that tend to be quietly dropped in order to be more inclusive are the importance of the Hope of Israel – the place of the Jews in the Father’s purpose, and the Old Testament covenants of promise – and separation from apostate Christendom. Searching for the lowest common denominator that will permit cooperation with other Christians can only be achieved by denying, or at least by seriously reducing, the importance of key Bible teachings.

On the other hand there are those who demand as a test of fellowship more from their brothers and sisters than the accepted basis of fellowship allows. These extra requirements can involve teachings, such as uncertain details of prophecy; aspects of behaviour, such as prescribing standards that go well beyond what scripture requires; and items of ecclesial policy, such as requiring a uniform approach following the breakdown of marriage. While those who try to achieve conformity to a more rigid set of requirements believe they are being more Christadelphian than other Christadelphians, the reality is that the faith they present is also only partially a Christadelphian faith. However strongly they may feel about any of the additional features, they have never historically formed the core elements of what marks out a person as a Christadelphian.

Privileges and responsibilities

The response in all the situations that have been described is to appreciate the great value of the Christadelphian basis of fellowship, for it unites ecclesias and their members all over the globe. By adhering to an established and well documented set of fundamental teachings there can be fruitful cooperation and joyous service as together we form one body made up of many different parts. For “the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body” (1 Corinthians 12:12). Naturally, there are certain responsibilities associated with these wonderful privileges. Worldwide fellowship exists because there is a common basis, so anyone sharing in that fellowship should honourably uphold the faith on which it is based, neither seeking to reduce or minimise its requirements, nor trying to extend or increase them.

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6)

[1] This document is now generally known as The Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF), and has existed in its present form for well over a hundred years.
[2] Historically, some in this second group have formed separate fellowships, by adding more clauses to the statement of faith, acknowledging that if they treat these further teachings as first principles it creates a new and different basis of fellowship. But there are others who retain the benefits of the wider fellowship while imposing additional restrictions in their own ecclesias or group of ecclesias.
[3] This clarification, known as the Cooper-Carter Addendum, is incorporated in the Australian Unity Agreement.
[4] This teaching is often referred to as “Clean flesh”.