In recent months there have been a number of statements made concerning the relationship of the Statement of Faith to the Bible. Some of these have carried implications which we feel spell danger for the brotherhood. Brethren and Ecclesias, in urging action against an individual brother who has claimed a Holy Spirit Gift, have accused an ecclesia of hiding behind the Statement of Faith, because they will not completely cut off the brother concerned from fellowship.
This attitude has led to a number of statements which plainly imply that the Statement of Faith is inadequate as a basis of fellowship. For example the Logos Editor has written,
“. . . a person could believe or act as he likes, and so long as it is not listed in the Statement of Faith, no action could be taken against him! Error should not be so restricted.” (Dec. ’71 p.93).
The only example given is that “evolution” is not classed as an error in the Statement of Faith. We think the writer must have overlooked Clause I of the Statement, which in part states, “He (God) hath, out of his own underived energy, created heaven and earth, and all that in them is.” Surely any acceptance of evolution would automatically lead to a rejection of the above statement! We have heard other examples of “errors” not specifically mentioned in the Statement of Faith, in particular the worship of idols and of Mary. But these things are covered by positive statements in the B.A.S.F., for instance you cannot believe in “The One True God” and still worship idols. It seems to us that some are clutching at straws in order to undermine the basis on which Ecclesias in this country have in the past enjoyed harmonious fellowship.
In the letter on UNITY of April 1956 by Bre. Carter and Cooper, the following very necessary advice was given.
“A Statement of Faith is essential for any community of believers to define their beliefs to ensure harmonious working together and consistent testimony to those without. To decry a statement as man-made and to speak of the Bible as alone sufficient reveals a marked failure to perceive the problems of ecclesial life and its duties. All the sects of Christendom claim to base their beliefs on the Bible, a fact which in itself demonstrates the need for a Statement of what we understand to be the teaching of the Word of God.”
In seems plain that Logos is adding to the lack of harmony in our midst by claiming that the Statement of Faith is not sufficient as a basis of fellowship. The article in their December issue (quoted above) employs some reasoning that might at first appear sound, but on closer examination has alarming implications. The Editor, in complaining of the failure to disfellowship for “error” unless it is specifically referred to in the Statement of Faith, states, “This is the wrong use of the Statement of Faith, and in fact, elevates it as of greater authority than the Word itself. . . . The greater authority, of course, is the Bible, and to that both Ecclesial Constitutions and Statements of Faith must bow.”
What is stated here either means that —
- there is no real need for a statement of faith.
- the statement of faith is inadequate because it does not cover all the fundamentals which we believe are contained in the Bible.
We are not sure which the Editor means, but we are concerned on either count. Particularly are we concerned that here is further evidence that Logos want to add to fundamentals. We have expressed concern on this before (Believer No. 2 p.26) in the Logos attitude to the interpretation of the Book of Revelation and prophecy in which we gave illustrations of Logos complaints of “doctrinally unsound” expositions and the propagation of ideas “quite foreign to Christadelphian doctrine” when these matters appear to be quite outside the basis of our fellowship. It is true that the Bible is the final authority in all things, but it is also true that our fellowship together must be defined in a summary of fundamentals to which we give common assent.
If we multiply these fundamentals we shall multiply our problems. We shall also multiply our “fellowships”! There is evidence of this in the splinter groups that have broken away from the main body of the Christadelphian movement, some of which have further fragmented on minor points of what they consider “fundamental doctrine” based on a rigid application of scripture teaching. The history of the Berean Group is a good example. They became very strict in the complete restriction on sisters in taking any part in Ecclesial affairs. When an Ecclesia in their “fellowship” (the Pemberton Ecclesia in 1933) passed a resolution allowing sisters to “ask questions at the Bible Class through the medium of paper” and permitting them to speak at Business meetings, the other ecclesias in fellowship with them withdrew from them as the matter was considered fundamental to fellowship. This incident was commented on in “The Remnant” (Sept. ’71 p.166) , the magazine of a group which might be called the “Remnant Fellowship” — a very small handful of ecclesias in U.K. and U.S.A. which is itself a breakaway from the Dawn Fellowship. Their magazine is critical of the matter because the other ecclesias readmitted the Pemberton Ecclesia to fellowship with them again when they decided to rescind the motion. The magazine complained that to just rescind the motion was not in itself a sufficient admission that it had been “error”. It stated — “But where is the evidence of such “sincerity of repentance”? Was the resolution a sin? Where is the confession of such a grievous sin? Where the sorrow? . . . Where so great a sin as a denial of God’s Word has been committed, repentance requires, as the Apostle Paul says in writing to the brethren in Corinth (II Cor. 7:11) .”
The above illustrates the way “God’s Word” can be interpreted and applied on matters outside the basis of fellowship and thus turned into “Ecclesial Law”. They then become issues of debate and disfellowship. If we are going to repudiate the agreed basis of fellowship as unnecessary, we are going to open wide the door for never-ceasing debate and friction. We will become so involved in internal matters that our “lights” will have no time to burn before men.
The only other solution is that adopted by most other sects — that of having a hierarchy which dictates on matters of belief and practice to an obedient and captive flock.
May we urge brethren and sisters everywhere to realize the value of maintaining our agreed basis of fellowship. Logos reasoning would undermine this, even though it might sound very plausible. It is totally unthinkable that the brotherhood in any part, could adopt Pentecostal ideals and still remain on the agreed basis. That there may be cause to amend the basis at some stage is not outside the bounds of possibility, but it would require the mutual agreement of all ecclesias and would need the most careful consideration. Certainly any move to include reference to the Holy Spirit, which stated or implied that it is not available or does not operate today in any sense, would cause division; and is not scripturally sound.
We have written these words with a heavy heart, dismayed at the mounting tension and hard words. Oh, that we could really “aim at righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.” (2 Tim. 2:22 rsv) . It is a time of heart searching for the whole brotherhood. Maybe this is God’s way of seeking to awake some out of apathy and turn others aside from the path of bigotry. One thing is sure, the great day draws ever nearer. Let us not fail in our integrity
Fellowship with the Maker and Brethren