“An Appeal to Christadelphians”

First of all an appeal to you to read calmly and kindly, with a desire to find whatever good there may be in the work and without allowing judg­ment to be warped by any feeling you may have either for or against the writer.

This is really the third attempt within the last two years to write this appeal. The other two were not free from that evil quality that constitutes nine tenths of human controversy and so a third effort was desirable. The Apostle places debate and strife among the death-dealing works of the flesh and the more we see of it, surely the better we shall understand this severe condemnation. We must remember the law of charity especially when engaged in dispute. It is well to resist the temptation to make any personal rejoinder or vindication when we think we have been unfairly treated. The most triumphant vindica­tion in the sight of men will be of no avail to us if the Lord does not approve us, while on the other hand if the Lord does approve, all the criticisms and misrepresentations of men will count for nothing. We shall forgive them all as easily as we have forgiven the little playmates who were thoughtlessly unkind to us in days of childhood.

There is urgent reason for taking a dispassionate and unprejudiced survey of the position of the Brotherhood now. We are perhaps more privileged than any men who have ever lived. We can see overwhelming evidence that God is working out His purpose. The confident expectations of students of prophecy are being fulfilled in such a manner as to leave no room for doubt. We ought to exhort one another daily and so much the more as we see the day approaching. We ought to be instant in season and out of season, preaching the Gospel, building each other up and devoting our energies in a united effort to prepare all whose ears we can reach for the great change that is coming. Instead of this united work, the Brotherhood is divided into factions with causes ready to subdivide them into any number more if every matter of disagreement were dealt with in the spirit that has prevailed.

Money and strength have been wasted in destructive and unprofitable disputing. The enemies of the Gospel have been strengthened while seekers for truth young and old have been discouraged and repelled. Divisions have been forced on matters of judgment which have severed those who were absolutely at one on principle. Over all there hangs the cloud of fear that any time brethren who are united in the One Faith may find themselves at issue, not on any doctrinal matter but in judgment of an obscure and complex matter thrust upon them from another part of the world. Brethren are beginning to feel convinced that something is wrong that such severance should be possible. Can we find where the fault lies?

A passage of Scripture has been thrust upon my attention in rather an extraordinary manner, suggesting one direction where we may have been faulty:—

“What I tell you in darkness that speak ye in light, and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye on the house tops, and fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

There are probably not many who can honestly say that they have never feared man. It is a very natural weakness to fear the opinions of our fellows, espec­ially those who are near and dear to us. Such fear, often elaborately disguised leads to all manner of evils. Christadelphian traditions are not better than any other traditions of men unless they are based upon the Word. If any of our work has been ruled by the fear of men it has been along the wrong lines. Our effort must be to get at the teaching of the Word and proclaim that upon the house-tops, however much it may be resented.

I think we have been at fault in taking a restricted view of what is meant by doctrine. We are right to insist on purity of doctrine, but we are wrong if we think of doctrine as confined to those matters in which Christendom has gone so palpably astray. When the Apostle speaks of things that are contrary to sound doctrine, his direct reference is to moral laws in connection with which the word doctrine is not used in these days. When he urges the need for sound doctrine (Titus 2) he mentions temperance, charity and patience as well as sound faith. Doctrine is really the substance of teaching and it covers the whole ground of divine requirements. In rightly dividing the Word of truth we must give due weight to all Scriptural doctrines. Supreme among them all is the doctrine of love with its concomitant virtues of meek­ness, gentleness, and forbearance. These matters are urged incessantly by the Apostles in connection with every phase of the Truth. Finally, the Apostle Paul uses language that would be accounted extreme from any less authority. He declares that although a man may have a mountain moving faith and an almost super-human capacity for self-sacrifice, it will all profit him nothing in the absence of that love which suffereth long and is kind. We do not give our bodies to be burned in these days, nor are modern men inclined to give all their goods to feed the poor. Not many have a faith that will move mountains. Where then shall we stand if we are lacking in this funda­mental doctrine of love apart from which even Christian martyrs would perish?

There are some brethren who would say—indeed have said, “This is not the time to talk about love, kindness and forbearance. We must have purity of doctrine first.” What tragedy there is in such an attitude if our doctrine has been most impure in this very matter that they rule out of court. Yet, put the question fairly. Wherein have we as a body, fallen farthest short of the Christian ideal? In teaching and applying the doctrine of separation from the world or in that charity that suffereth long and is kind and thinketh no evil? We shall do well at all times to remember that this love is a Christian doctrine and the Apostle teaches that impurity in this direction is fatal.

Another fault of the brethren has surely been that many have failed to recognise even the possibility of sin in judging and cutting off from fellowship others of the One Faith. Some have shown themselves acutely conscious of the danger of unsound fellowship but apparently unconscious that there could be any danger of unrighteous excision. We have heard the plea to “Give the Lord the benefit of any doubt,” and “be on the safe side,” used actually as an argument for withdrawal. These maxims are excellent for the guidance of personal conduct when we are tempted to engage in any doubtful enterprise, but it is prepos­terous to apply them to Ecclesial disputes and to assume that when there are doubts as to the worthi­ness of brethren for fellowship, the “safe side” is to cut them off.

Some extremists have said, “We do not cut anyone off. We simply withdraw from them as a matter of our own conscience.” This is a pitiful trifling with words. Of course, in the final sense we cannot cut anyone off. Neither can we prevent anyone from having the bread of life even if we were wicked enough to try. All sins that we commit against the brethren are finally sins against our own souls. If, however, we withdraw from any members, we cut them off from our fellowship, we have to accept the responsibility for our action and it is futile to trifle with words. The principle applies that what we do to the least of Christ’s brethren we do to Christ, and if we sin against the brethren we sin against Christ.

The question may then be asked: “How shall we dare to withdraw from anyone in view of the fact that Christ may accept them?” It is an easy question to answer. Thoughtful brethren would not dare to withdraw if they had no Scriptural guidance. The Word shows us that there are times when to cut off certain members from our fellowship is the kindest thing we can do to them. The unpleasant duty must be undertaken in this spirit. An offender who is unrepentant is “put away,” handed over to satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. It brings him to a realization of the gravity of his offence. He repents with a godly sorrow and is received back before the grief becomes too great.

In the same way if brethren insistently teach doctrines that menace the saving faith of the Gospel, the kindest thing we can do is to put them away from our fellowship. Clearly it is possible to sin either by joining that which should be kept separate or by dividing that which should remain one.

Is there anything in Scripture to suggest that there is more danger to our salvation in being too tolerant than in being too severe? The traditions of men count for nothing. We must try to find an answer to the question in the Word of God. Is there anything in Christ’s Fellowship of His disciples to suggest that we have not been drastic enough in these last times in withdrawing from the unworthy? Or if it is argued that the Church was not organised while Christ was on earth, is there anything in the teaching of the Apostles to suggest that we have not been severe enough in dealing with those who in word or deed have offended? Take the letters to the Corinthians and Galatians. Many errors are mentioned, and in one case they were commanded to withdraw from an offender. Does a careful perusal of those letters sug­gest that our salvation is in danger because we have not been severe enough? Surely no one could say yes to this question.

Now read 1 Tim. 6, 4; Rom. 13, 13; Gal. 5, 20; Phil. 2, 3; Jas. 3, 14-16; 2 Cor. 12-20; 2 Tim. 2, 23.

Then ask whether there is the possibility that we may be in danger through having caused unnecessary strife.

Then we might take a concordance and choose from the New Testament a hundred passages regarding love, patience, gentleness, forbearance, and ask whether we are satisfied with our record in these matters?

My conviction is that we, as a body, are in a thousand times greater danger through failure in this matter of brotherly love than in those doubtful issues which have so exercised many of our members. When once controversy has started there is usually a tend­ency on all sides to multiply the sins of unfairness, misrepresentation, and all the other fleshly evils that arise from strife. Stones are thrown where bread should be given. The Scriptures will save us if we will allow them to have free course, but we must search them for food and medicine and not merely for weapons.

I think that another error, closely related to the one just mentioned, has been the failure to remember that the greatest abhorrence of sin is not necessarily found in the one who is most severe on the sinner. Sinful men wanted to stone the sinful woman. It was the perfect man who saved her. In these days many of the brethren seem to think that if it is admitted that any members have sinned, the only logical course is to withdraw from them, while anyone who has reservations as to the correctness of such severity must be regarded as a partaker of the evil deeds and should be treated in like manner. There is no justification for such ideas in the Bible.

According to the Scriptures we have “all sinned.” If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” “To him that Knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.” “All unrighteousness is sin and there is a sin not unto death.”

All sins are not to be visited with excommunication or we should all be cut off. The Apostle Peter says: “Above all things have fervent charity among your­selves, for charity covereth a multitude of sins.” The Apostle James speaks of restoring the sinner. The Apostle Paul says: “Restore in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself lest thou also be tempted.” Some sins are to be rebuked before all that others also may fear; and some sins, such as that of the Corinthian fornicator, are to be purged by withdrawal, but still in the spirit of love to restore and save the sinner.

When a fault has been committed we may all agree that wrong has been done, but not at all agree as to how the offender is to be treated, whether it is a case for private reproof, for public rebuke or for with­drawal. What then? Are we to have a division every time such a difference of judgment arises? Most emphatically no. Scripture shows us quite plainly how to proceed if only we will be guided by it. Each Ecclesia is primarily responsible for its own members. There is no instance in Scripture of one church being taken to task for the errors committed in another. In these days we certainly have no Ecclesia so wise as to be capable of judging the complexities of other meetings, so it is a merciful provision that we are not required, not even permitted to judge the other servants of the Lord.

As for the difficulty of differing judgments in the same Ecclesia in those matters where we are required to take action, there is a Scriptural principle covering the whole ground: “Be subject in love one to another.” It is right for a brother to advise his Ecclesia in the direction that he thinks is Scriptural and Christlike. If, however, his counsel is rejected, it is wrong for him to be carried away by the natural feeling of resentment. Subjection to such a fleshly feeling might easily lead him to join those who are still less Scrip­tural and to support them in evil after the manner so familiar in the politics of the world. Unless he is faithfully and dispassionately convinced that a vital principle is involved demanding separation, the proper course is to submit in love to the rule of the majority. If he cannot influence his brethren to go the whole length in the direction that he thinks is right, he may yet influence them a little. And after all, human judgment is so frail, that he would be a bold man who could be absolutely sure that he knew exactly the right course to take in a complex matter of clashing personalities.

We are, however, responsible for the proper use of such powers as we possess, and when asked for our opinion we should give our real opinion, in the fear of God and not the fear of man.

If, for instance, a member of an Ecclesia has been guilty of evil conduct, there may be differences of opinion as to how he should be treated. If you think it is one of those cases calling merely for reproof or rebuke, do not fear to say so. If, however, the Ecclesia decides to withdraw from the offender, submit to the ruling and urge the offender to accept it in the right spirit. An insistence upon your judg­ment to the point of severing yourself from the Ecclesia would not only be a wrong course for you, it would probably also be the worst possible dis-service to the one you were trying to help.

Such differences of opinion have repeatedly arisen in the past. It is only in recent years that some of the brethren have failed to remember the lesson of John 8, that those who are ready to be most severe with the offender are not always the most righteous or the most conscious of the gravity of the sin that has been committed. It is possible for the most righteous brother to be the one who most hesitates to cut off offenders.

It is only fair to the memory of Dr. Thomas to point out that he has been a victim of this modern tendency to suppose that a man is defending any evil that he will not stone. Dr. Thomas quoted the apostle’s words regarding marriage “only in the Lord,” but pointed out that no punishment is specified for those who fail to obey. He then made the comment: “As Paul described no punishment, I do not see why you should be more stringent than the apostle.” In the same letter, however, Dr. Thomas recognised that if the brethren could calmly agree on a stronger course without disturbing the minds of babes in Christ by doubtful disputings, the severer action might then be justified. His defence was not for laxity of conduct; but for proclaiming the Gospel. His whole­hearted condemnation was not of zeal for purity, but of the strife and contention which divided men who had the one faith and prevented the growth of babes in Christ. He regarded this strife and ill-feeling as a far worse evil than the error which led to it. He wrote:—

“You are all of one faith, one hope, one Lord, one baptism, one body. In these things it is said you agree, why then do you allow doubtful ques­tions to divide you? You compass only evil by such a course. No possible good can come of it. Your contentions and divisions bring reproach upon the Truth. You ought to throw all your energies into this for its support and not waste time and power in vain strife by which you crucify it, and put it to an open shame and make yourselves a bye-word in the lips of hypocrites and sinners. Let your modera­tion be known to all men the Lord is at hand.”

Where love rules there is not much difficulty in agreeing on those points where it has pleased God to put upon His people the responsibility of judging. Whatever action is taken against an offender it is in love and with the hope that he may be restored. If all do not agree as to the precise application of admit­ted principles, they are in love subject to one another. On such a basis, even difficult matters can be adjusted without any dimming of the light or starving of babes in Christ. Where love does not rule every kind of strife, unkindness and impatience can be expected.

The modern tendency to cut brethren off for a difference in judgment as to how an offender should be treated, is surely a symptom of this fundamental failure. It is redolent of Spain and Rome rather than of Zion.

I am as certain as I can be of anything in life, that the readiness to “withdraw” and the unwillingness to restore in the spirit of meekness has been the outstand­ing unrighteousness of our day and “all unrighteous­ness is sin.”

We have no right to cut brethren off from fellow­ship because they cannot subscribe to the wisdom of an Ecclesial resolution. A minority has no right to withdraw from fellowship because they think that the Ecclesia should be more severe or less severe in dealing with an offender. A majority has no right to cut off from fellowship brethren who in zeal for preaching the Gospel try to establish a new fightstand without the consent of the original meeting. The attempt may be ill-advised, a technical fault, and calling for reproof, but just as Paul and Barnabas remained in fellowship and carried on the good work, even after they disputed and separated, so in these days, such differences of opinion should be left to the judgment of the Lord. If the brethren who attempt to form a new Ecclesia are unfit for the task, they will soon be back in the original meeting, much humbled and improved. If, however, the Lord blesses them, and a real light-stand is formed in a new district, how shall we dare to do other than rejoice that the Gospel is preached?

When a division takes place without any real doctrinal issue, it is almost certain that there are faults on both sides. The more there is of strife the more unrighteousness there will be. It is quite right for another Ecclesia to be ready with temperate and unprejudiced counsels if intervention is invited. Quite right in any case to urge that the contending parties should cease to strive and get together. It is quite wrong to assume the office of Judge and to force such judgment on all the other ecclesias with wholesale excommunication for those who do not agree. Such a course is unrighteous and all unrighteousness is sin. The only way in which brethren can justify such an extreme, even to themselves, is by exaggerating the faults of those they have already wronged, and that makes the unrighteousness so much worse. In this way the work of the Gospel is hindered, obstacles are put in the way of the young, and the adversary is presented with weapons to use against the Truth.

I am as certain as I could ever be of anything in this mortal life, that our greatest fault as a body has been in this fundamental matter of love. The love of the Truth, which means the love of God, and the love of the brethren which alone can reveal our love for God, and apart from which all our professions of love would be rejected.

We have been zealous for purity of doctrine in other matters. We have “strengthened our basis” until it has become too complicated. Faults which a genera­tion ago were reproved and then left to the judgment of the Lord have been made tests of fellowship. We have been zealous, perhaps commendably zealous in these things; but we have, as a body, failed in that which is greater. It is futile for us to deny it or to excuse ourselves. The Master laid down the supreme test. “A tree is known by its fruit.” We can see some fruits of love or our position would be hopeless, but there is much other fruit too, evil and poisonous fruit, nourished from bitter roots. As wise men and women we ought to recognise the facts and take the lesson to heart. Remember that love as the Apostle defines it is absolutely essential. Even Christian martyrs will not be saved without it. If we do not agree with some of our brethren and controversy arises, that is not an occasion for forgetting the law of love. It is just the time when we need most to remember it.

There are probably many who will agree with all that has been advanced here, and yet will feel that the greatest menace to peace has not yet been touched. There are some who can remember the law of love even when controversy arises, but they are much exercised over the matter of purity of doctrine, not only in their own meetings but all over the world. Distant countries are now in touch with each other in a manner quite unknown to the ancient world and we soon hear of troubles even in remote parts. There are many brethren who think that “heresy hunting is a duty” and that as custodians of the Truth we are called upon to “take action” against anyone whom we regard as a teacher of heresy, wherever in the world he may live.

Such action might be practicable if the “heresies” took the form of a definite repudiation of any element of the One Faith. We should then have a clear issue and brethren would know what they were doing. The difficulties, however, generally arise through utterances so vague that we cannot agree as to what they mean. Often enough too, when controversy is provoked, the result is that language quite as unsatis­factory is used on the other side of the argument, for extremes usually beget opposite extremes. We might easily have brethren in this country, in perfect agree­ment in the Faith themselves, but divided into four different sections in their efforts to pass judgment on two warring factions ten thousand miles away. Four judgments are possible, to disfellowship one side or the other, or both or neither.

Our interpretation of doubtful words will depend largely on our experience. Some may resent this remark but it is fundamentally true. I remember, as a boy, being astonished to find in an old “Christa­delphian” an article expressing the renunciation theory, printed some time before the controversy arose. Why did the editor approve such an article in view of his subsequent attitude? Increased knowledge of human limitations removes all feeling of surprise. There is all the difference in the world between reading doubtful words after the false doctrine has been definitely promulgated and reading them when there is no suspicion of anything being amiss. In the same way brethren now may pay no heed to doubtful words leading to a heresy not yet disclosed, while being over sensitive regarding language in any way reminiscent of past troubles. Hence we get different judgments as to whether a provocative and strife-causing pamphlet should be dismissed as one of the many unsatisfactory efforts of men who venture beyond their depth, or whether it is so definitely heretical as to demand serious action.

It is quite certain that if we are to decide, or as the effect would really be take sides on every point of dispute in the Brotherhood all over the world, we shall soon be split up into many parties while not differing from each other in any single matter of the One Faith. There are some earnest members who seem to think that in order to secure purity of doctrine this taking action is necessary whatever the immediate results might be.

I repudiate the notion altogether. Two reasons for this repudiation may perhaps suffice as they are really both conclusive. The reason of lesser importance shall be stated first. Such a scheme for securing purity of fellowship is impossible in practice. Those who put the idea forward are not prepared to apply it as a principle. They only think of a specific difficulty which they feel should be brought to a head. The fact is that with the hundreds of Ecclesias there are in the world there is always a difficulty somewhere. There is always some doubtful disputing and unsatisfactory talk which might easily be magnified into heresy and advertised by opposition into world wide fame or infamy. Most of the brethren have no idea how many unfortunate attempts are made to expound the deep things of God’s law. I have, sometimes, received two or three such printed efforts in the course of a single week, and this, of course, does not represent all that is produced. It is an utter impossibility to deal with all these doubtful expositions or to inquire into the affairs of the Ecclesias from whence they come.

The second and still stronger reason is that we have the most explicit command of Scripture not to force doubtful disputations on those who are weak in the Faith. If students of long experience cannot agree as to the meaning of a pamphlet we are obviously forcing doubtful disputations on the weak if we insist that babes in Christ must take sides regarding it. To do this is to sin, whatever feeling of zeal may prompt the error.

Surely when one of the very many clumsy attempts to expound the Word causes such trouble as to force itself upon our attention, the proper course is to re-affirm our position. Wherever it is felt that “some­thing should be done,” let the arranging brethren of an Ecclesia pass a resolution that they do not approve of the unsatisfactory book, the simple truth of the matter according to Scripture is thus, and so, and on that basis, they invite co-operation and fellowship. The young and weak in any meeting probably read far too little of the Word and of really good exposi­tions and exhortations. Why force them to read doubtful and confusing works which cannot benefit them, in order that they may withdraw from faithful brethren who have not found time to read them or have understood the doubtful words in another sense?

The fact is here again the trouble has arisen through insufficient attention to the great principle. “This is my commandment,” said the Lord Jesus, “that ye love one another as I have loved you.” “Above all things,” said the Apostle Peter, “have fervent charity among yourselves.”

When men know the Truth and have this fervent love after the example of the Lord Jesus it begets enthusiasm. It becomes a driving force for good. It destroys the germs of all forms of opposition to Truth as sunshine destroys the germs of disease. It is not overcome of evil but it overcomes evil with good. Where the master principle is neglected we need not be surprised if other commands are forgotten; if energy is wasted and good wheat destroyed in an industrious effort to root out tares, while unity is destroyed by forcing doubtful disputations on those whose faith is weak.

There is danger now that having seen unrighteous extremes of excommunication some brethren may raise an almost equally harmful agitation in the opposite direction. They may reason in this way. Is it not possible that even where there were doctrinal errors in the past they have been discarded? Would it not be right and a most desirable move if all who are one in Faith should be one in fellowship?

Beyond question it would seem a most excellent thing if all in the world who will be accepted by

Christ could be joined together now, without the admixture of anything that He would not approve. It is, however, quite impossible for us to attain to this ideal. If we devoted all our time and energy to this one object of securing a purc yet comprehensive fellowship, we probably should still have with us some unworthy members while leaving outside some whom the Lord will approve. Our failure in such a case would be complete and irrevocable, for in our abortive effort to achieve the impossible we should have neglected the essential duties that are laid upon us.

The effort to reach the impossible ideal might easily cause such agitation and stirring up of undesirable feeling that it would work far more harm than good. When once division has been effected it is very difficult to heal the breach even if all real causes of separation have been removed. This only emphasises the heavy responsibility upon us to deal with our brethren after the precept and example of Christ and so not to be the cause of offence, strife and division. Here again the master principle applies. If ever fusion is effected on a right basis, the enthusiastic work of fervent charity will show the way. In the labour of love at the duties that are near to us all who ought to be united will eventually come together. Discussing their differences would drive them farther apart.

The supreme need of the times shines as clearly as the sun in an Eastern sky. We must apply the “New Commandment” of the Lord on a far higher plane than ever before. We must have that fervent love that can even conquer fleshly pride. We must be pitiful, courteous, forgiving, gentle, patient, long-suffering, not easily provoked, not puffed up, not watching for iniquity, but rejoicing in the Truth.

We must be responsive to the great privilege accorded to us in these extraordinary times, teaching men the great truths that have been committed to us, and showing both by precept and example to the world that the knowledge of Christ is with us. We have a long way to climb before we reach this plane, but we must reach it or perish.