Firstly — how do we define “error”? It sounds a needless question to ask! Obviously that which is not “truth” is “error”. it would seem a clear case of black or white. But pause a moment, let us not oversimplify the problem. When applied to ecclesial relationships and the upholding of “Truth” — is it always just a clear case of defining black or white? Ecclesial relationships rest upon an agreed basis of fellowship, a basis of fundamentals carefully and laboriously decided upon as setting out a common understanding of doctrinal truth. Definite departure from such a basis must be viewed as “error”, and ecclesias have a responsibility to take action if definite and proven “error” arises and persists.
Now let us apply this principle to current problems in particular the problem of belief in the present possession of a gift of the Holy Spirit, namely speaking in an unknown tongue. This problem has again been highlighted by The Logos Magazine (Dec. ’71 pages 92-96). Logos has challenged this belief as “error” and has condemned the Shaftesbury Rd. Ecclesia for taking no action. The Ecclesia has complained that its views and stand in the matter have been misrepresented by Logos. The Ecclesia has made it quite clear they do not support the views of the brother involved and they have taken certain action. Logos has retorted: —
“However we are amazed that the A.B. are not prepared to acknowledge that Brother Pearce ‘holds error.’ That being the case, why did they request of him that he relinquish his offices in the Ecclesia? If he does not hold error, if what he believes is not considered a fellowship matter, he should be permitted appointments in the Ecclesia.”
At first glance this sounds logical. But the matter calls for more careful thought and insight. In fact, this illustrates the real problem in how far we can go in our definition of what is “error” for the purposes of ecclesial relationships. The Shaftesbury Road Ecclesia defines “error” on the basis of the Statement of Faith, but quite plainly they do not therefore regard as “truth” everything which is not plainly stated as error by some positive or negative clause in the Statement! It would probably be more helpful to think of “error” as defined in the Statement of Faith as “fundamental error”. This would enable one to talk of and weigh up the relative seriousness of false understanding of non-fundamentals. And isn’t this the case in the present problem? We must resist attempts to confuse the issue.
We would refer readers back to remarks in a previous issue (No. 5 p.21) when we made observations concerning any who might claim the “experience” of Speaking in Tongues, and we stated —
“The person has to explain how they relate this to Scriptural teaching, and it is here where our present Statement of Faith is adequate to deal with the situation.”
How does this apply to the Shaftesbury Rd. Ecclesial problems? The way some have written and spoken of the matter would give the impression that some ecclesias are getting infested with Pentecostal style ideals, beliefs and practices. For instance the article (mentioned above) published in Logos concluded by observing —
… the religious world is faced with an amazing phenomena today, in that Pentecostal principles are being set forth in many sects. Many churches are reporting this, though we never imagined that brethren or ecclesias would follow suit. Now, in the present controversy involving the Shaftesbury Road Ecclesia, the principle is advanced further, and the view is advocated that the doctrine of the present possession of the Holy Spirit does not constitute “error” in view of the silence of the Statement of Faith, and that therefore it is not a matter of fellowship. This view has been circularised to many Ecclesias throughout Australia by the Ecclesia, and we believe that those who are faithful to their call should clearly state where they stand in this important matter.”
In our knowledge of the matter, the above words are a complete exaggeration of the situation at the Shaftesbury Rd. Ecclesia. The Logos magazine is blowing up the matter out of all proportion to the actual facts. Not one brother at the ecclesia has heard or witnessed this “gift” of tongue speaking the particular brother has claimed. As the present writer publicly stated at the Logos backed “UNITY” gathering last November —
“… the situation at Shaftesbury Rd., as I understand it, and I have had a long talk with Bro. Pearce Snr., has not reached this stage (i.e. the stage of accepting doctrines set out in the B.A.S.F. as ‘to be rejected’ particularly Clause 31) and perhaps never will. Bro. Pearce does not claim to have been baptised by the Holy Spirit; he maintains the supremacy of the Word. He states he has received a gift, and draws a distinction between that and having the Holy Spirit and looks at it in a totally different light to modern Pentecostalism. The Ecclesia, in their wisdom, has seen fit to remove him from all office and speaking appointments and to require a promise not to propagate his views in any way; this clearly indicates their repudiation and total lack of sympathy for his attitude. This is their judgment of what should be done, and based on my experience in the matter, I respect their judgment. If Bro. Pearce’s views should change then a consideration of more extreme action would be in order.”
The Logos article (p.94) refers to “a published statement” detailing the claims of Bro. Pearce concerning prayers of faith for the sick and anointing them with oil. The article fails to clarify this matter, giving readers the impression that a Holy Spirit Gift is being claimed as the means of healing. That this is not the case is being made plain in the series of articles on “The Prayer of Faith” currently being published in this magazine.
Logos gives no indication of the origin of this “published statement” which, in the context of the Logos articles, readers could be left with the impression it was issued to advocate the views of Bro. Pearce. The opposite is the truth. The Recorder of a Logos Ecclesia (Pennant Hills) issued this statement. This was the result of his ecclesia’s “investigations” into the matter, part of which was a telephone conversation he had had with Bro. Pearce. The Recording Brother concerned apparently expressed sympathy and concern that Bro. Pearce may have been misunderstood, and then “published” verbatim quotes from his alleged verbal replies which his ecclesia subsequently sent as a three-page foolscap circular to every Australian ecclesia. The Shaftesbury Road Ecclesia, saddened and sickened by such methods, did not deem it appropriate to make detailed comment on such a statement, rather they then issued a positive announcement of their attitudes. In this magazine (No. 4 p.16) we made it clear that in the application of the injunction of James 5 to pray for the sick, the brethren of Shaftesbury Road did not consider that any one particular brother should be present. But Logos writes as if Bro. Pearce is the focal point of such prayers, stating “he has actually named the brethren concerned who associated with him in this experiment”. But Bro. Pearce issued no statement, a Logos ecclesia did this and did the naming, based on information solicited over the telephone. (Not that the brethren concerned have done anything to be ashamed of, rather they rejoice in the confidence which earnest prayer can bring).
it is with regret that we have used so much space to write on such negative matters. But there is a need to help brethren and sisters (particularly those overseas) to gain a better insight into the state of the brotherhood in this country and the attitudes and actions which are the root causes of so much of the trouble.
An observation made in our first issue, that the Australian ecclesial scene was “coming to resemble the trade union movement” may have been somewhat extravagant, but events continue to illustrate it has unfortunately far too many grains of truth.
Have we forgotten that “the eye of the Lord” is upon all? If there is to be any turning back from the present unhappy state of affairs, it will only be if we can all become acutely conscious of the all-seeing Creator, for “all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do”. (Heb. 4:13 R.S.V.)
Fellowship with the Maker and Brethren