The first 50 years or so of Christadelphian history to the 1920’s were characterised by argument, strife and division. In 1927 Bro. F. Jannaway wrote, “there are at least 12 fraternities calling themselves Christadelpian, and yet each refusing to fellowship the other eleven.” But the 1920’s were a turning point and saw the beginnings of saner attitudes and an appreciation of diversity of expression and approach that nevertheless rested on the same fundamental Truths. The moves for unification gathered momentum to reach their peak in the 1950’s. It was no easy path but brethren of goodwill, patience and deep spirituality developed understanding among themselves and more Christ-like attitudes within our community and on these foundations the building of UNITY was erected.
The 1960’s saw the fruits of this work, particularly in Britain and Australia. Mission work flourished and the Truth prospered. And now we are in the 1970’s. Suddenly, in but two years, the bleak prospect of division confronts us. Why? What has gone wrong?
We have a “party” within the brotherhood that claims it stands for purity of doctrine and is making widespread allegations of error. They employ intemperate and distasteful terms together with extreme and precipitate action. The scope of the allegations and the actions have been found to be wanting and although not without elements of truth in some particulars, the situation is one which calls for a far more careful and prayerful assessment than those making the allegations are prepared to give.
What is the cause of this attitude? The main hallmark of the “party” within is the emphasis on pioneer writings of the 19th century. But this is the period when the tendency to division was most acute! Is this the key to the cause? In seeking to recapture the value of the expositions of our early brethren, the hardness of spirit which led to so many divisions has also been recaptured. It’s not that the errors of understanding should not have been challenged. The key to the matter is the way they are challenged.
How sad it all is. Divided, we will fall in the eyes of the world; we weaken our own fight against the world’s evils pressing in on us; we become more involved in fighting each other than the things which really matter. The progress towards division continues unabated and we sadly place on record the events which accelerate its progress.
Additional ecclesias withdrawn from Shaftesbury Rd. Ecclesia (group C) — Riverwood, Redcliffe.
Additional ecclesia withdrawn from Caloundra Ecclesia (group B) — Cumberland.
Additional ecciesias resigned from Central Standing Committee (group D) Cumberland, Bossley Park, Ballina.
We are pleased to report the following good news. Canterbury Ecclesia (Victoria) has become affiliated with the Central Standing Committee which brings the number of affiliated ecclesias to 43.
Breaking Down The Unity Agreement
A small group of strong-willed brethren are determined to take the Australasian ecclesias back in history prior to the Unity Agreement of 1958 and re-establish some of the more distressing features of division that then existed. A set of reproductions, containing more than 50 pages, compiled for a meeting of nine N.S.W. LOGOS eccksias at Yagoona in July, 1971, together with the text of an address by Bro. E. Sponberg, has been sent to all N.S.W. ecclesias. The main resolution of the meeting was the three clauses of the Jersey City Agreement word for word except one line deleted and one added. Surely these brethren do not think the Unity Committees in Australia were unaware of or ignored this agreement? By pressing now for the acceptance of this agreement as well as the provisions of another agreement reached with some non-Shield Victorian ecclesias, also in 1952, both of which were not considered suitable for Australia and not pressed by either party in 1957, this small group of brethren are determined to force pre-Unity conditions upon the brotherhood. Are these the sort of conditions you want? Those acquiescing to pressure for provisions of overseas agreements are destroying our own basis.
In our previous issue (see “Our Fragmenting Community”) we strongly protested about the deprecating remarks in the “Logos” August editorial about Bro. Carter’s ability to assess correctly the Australian ecclesial position in 1957 and we stated then, that LOGOS supporters subscribing to that view cannot give support to the 1958 Unity Agreement. Their adherence is rapidly fading away. Not once does the Cooper-Carter Addendum receive a mention by Bro. Sponberg. It is ignored because it wasn’t in existence at the time of the Jersey City Agreement. Our Unity Agreement is being torn up by these brethren and in its place is substituted an overseas one, which to this day is still unable to unite “Amended” and “Unamended” fellowships in the U.S.A.! But note . . • The Australian agreement contains Clause 1 (b) “Acceptance of this basis would not preclude the use of any other adequate Statement of Faith by an ecclesia, provided this is in harmony with the B.A.S.F. understood as in Clause 1 (a) above”. (Unity Booklet P.14) . The properly constituted body who would appropriately be given the responsibility to judge the suitability of other Statements is the Central Standing Committee from which most LOGOS ecclesias have withdrawn. We can now see why another provision of our hard won Unity Agreement is being abandoned. We lay the responsibility for imposing division conditions on the brotherhood in Australia directly at the feet of a small group of LOGOS oriented brethren. Will you follow this road? Is this what you want?
The Current Fellowship Position In Sydney
The withdrawal is being made total. This is distressing and to be even more deplored when it touches the mission field. Yagoona ecclesia, at the last meeting of the N.S.W. Regional Mission Committee, asked for the removal of the Shaftesbury Road Ecclesial representative (the issue is to be decided next meeting) . River-wood Ecclesia would not attend the Sydney area Speakers’ Plan Meeting at Shaftesbury Rd. hall and attempts to have the Shaftesbury Rd. representative removed from the same meeting were unsuccessful. The Sydney Combined C.Y.C. will not organise weekend activities due to fellowship problems. The Australian brethren must be made aware of these rapidly develop ing difficulties brought about by the determination of a group of brethren to force upon all ecclesias a withdrawal situation which must come to a head before the Adelaide Bi-Ennial Conference next May. It is now clear LOGOS brethren will not fellowship Shaftesbury Rd. or Petrie Terrace brethren at Adelaide next May unless a complete change in events occurs and we pray that the Lord will bless us with the wisdom to avoid the tragedy that lies ahead.
This disastrous course is being pursued by brethren who, finding our Unity Agreement unsuitable for the purposes they have in mind, would like us to believe that they abide by the Central position in the Jersey City Agreement which in turn is based, almost word for word on part of an article by Bro. J. Carter on fellowship in the “Christadelphian” in 1945. But note well Bro. Carter’s words which immediately follow in the “Christadelphian” but not quoted in the Jersey City clauses, “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.” Here is the fatal flaw — seven LOGOS ecclesias have disfellowshipped Shaftesbury Road Ecclesia on a matter not in the Statement of Faith in contravention of Bro. Carter’s provisions when, having deserted our Australian basis, they would try to have us believe they embrace Central’s position. Bro. Sponberg recognises this flaw and appealed to other ecclesias to follow Riverwood Ecclesia’s example in adding, without any negotiation at all, a “doctrine to be rejected.”
The present friction is caused by those who want subtilly to multiply fundamentals and a prime first step to division is to add unilaterally to the basis of fellowship and then require others to assent to it. But is it true that “Agreements” unite? Only the Spirit of Christ can unite. If there is a hardness of spirit prevailing, all the agreements in the world will not bring unity. Is there an attempt to substitute UNIFORMITY for UNITY? If this is what you are willing to accept — regimentation, a potted “package deal” form of Christianity — then there is no need to protest at the present developing situation.
B.A.S.F. Without Reservation
Rather than “B.A.S.F. without reservation”, the Australian basis agreed to by the Central ecclesias allowed for “similar adequate statements” for the very reason that some others preferred a different wording and even in England, variation of expression is accepted. To insist “B.A.S.F. without Reservation” is a denial of our basis and an attempt to enforce strictures not even required in Britain. We draw attention to Clause 27 of the B.A.S.F. and the phrase “glory of Jehovah” and ask are there any reservations about that? The legalistic, uncompromising approach never satisfies ANYBODY; it divides — never heals. Those who heal, bring righteous peace, bind up the broken hearted are not the legalistic heresy-hunters but brethren of a recent era like Bro. Carter who assented to other statements in a spirit of correct accommodation, proposing only that “the doctrines to be believed and taught by us, without reservation, are the first princples of the One Faith as revealed in the Scriptures, of which the B.A.S.F. gives a true definition”. There are and can be many other expressions. “The Christadelphian” for July, 1958 editorially says, “REUNION IN AUSTRALIA. On another page we give some notes on Australian ecclesias and of the Editor’s visit to New Zealand and Australia. It must be a cause of satisfaction to all who are truly concerned with the Truth when an agreed basis, scriptural and good, is accepted and brethren who have been divided for years can work together in happy fellowship. The reunion in Australia provides for that satisfaction.” Are we about to let this small group of brethren undo 30 years of painstaking labour?
By perusing the various interim proposals and final agreements of the Christadelphian body of the past 50 years it can be seen that different conditions in different countries necessitated a tortuous path of slowly-converging courses that by toleration and concession brought agreement without compromising absolute fundamentals. This is scriptural. The agreement in Jerusalem in Acts 15 in Christian times allowed a compromise of four provisions of the Law of Moses, three of which eventually passed away. Although Paul took a strong stand against circumcision, he did not stand uncompromisingly on principle. Surprisingly, he circumcised Timothy for an equally surprising reason “because of the Jews . . . for they knew all his father was a Greek.” (Acts 16.3) . His reasons were ones of expediency that the gospel might be better received and the sooner we can employ the spirit and flexibility of the first century apostles, the sooner we will solve our problems and get on with preaching.
Our Unity Basis was designed for Australian conditions with the full assent of Central Ecclesias, including the allowance of the use of other adequate statements of faith if desired. To insist that entry to God’s kingdom varies from country to country and ecclesia to ecclesia, on the wording of the basis of fellowship that is used is preposterous. We have got our priorities and principles wrong. We urge brethren to have a humbler approach to the purposes and use of statements. They are arrived at through much counter-proposal, arbitration, change and Scripturally can be seen to be a flexible arrangement. We will not have peace and spiritual progression until brethren learn to control and use wisely their gifts of guidance and organisation under the humbling hand of the Lord. Not until there is a spirit of tolerance begotten by the spirit of love can we have unity.let us appreciate what kind of UNITY is true UNITY. The gospels provide an excellent example. Each has marked individual characteristics. There are even, on the surface, apparent discrepancies. No one gospel gives the full picture. So it is with brethren working for UNITY. This is UNITY we have achieved and may yet lose. It is not UNIFORMITY that some would seek to impose.
Fellowship with the Maker and Brethren