Maintaining the standards of Christ in a world of rapidly declining moral values, requires vigilance and continuous application. It also needs some monitoring, some sort of warning system to detect and rectify any decaying trends —failure to do so effectively, is to invite an undetected slide towards conformity with a wicked world; failure to do so wisely, is to shatter and dissipate the society. The Christadelphian world unfortunately is in danger of both.
For a decade or more we have not had the overall clear guidance and strong yet gentle leadership that a body like ours needs. More than once in our recent history, we have been in danger of slipping away — in some locations perhaps still so. And then, very lately, emerging out of this vacuum, we have experienced an unhappy and misguided attempt, by a section of our community, to impose a form of vigilance which threatens to break up our community. The one, we feel, has led to the other.
No movement can thrive and grow healthily without good leadership and wise guidance. Israel suffered grievously from lack of it. While they had Moses and Joshua, they had direction and purpose and after a relapse it was David and Solomon who picked up the pieces and built a community to be reckoned with. The Judges period, characterised by local tribal control, with little or no co-ordination, resulted in little progress and great gaps in the record, accompanied by the mournful refrain, “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 17: 6, 21 : 25) . We are passing through a similar period when, in spite of stress, division and dislocation in several international Christadelphian communities, there has been little consultation or leadership or practical help either asked of, or offered by, those in a position to give it. In two continents, we as much need personal counselling and practical advice on how to fellowship together, as we need a ten part exposition of the prophet Joel. We have had a good supply of the latter — a dearth of the former.
This is in no way a criticism of individual brethren who serve or have served. The Christadelphian magazine and its editors personally, have done much to help over many years — including the present. Other brethren have laboured tirelessly. But these means have not achieved the desired end of a unified and healthy body. It is clear that we are not organised to cope with the demands of the times. Have we the courage to think in new terms? We can all learn from hindsight, and now that imperfections have become perfectly clear, the necessity is an initiative so that consultation on a wide enough scale will avoid the sectionalised development and partisan growth of the past. It is not good enough for the rest to stand aside, on the grounds of non-interference, while a section of the brotherhood fades away or threatens to destroy itself. If you call the alternative “interference”, then Paul “interfered”. He wrote, “Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (1 Cor 1: 10-11) . This is not “interference”. This is sound guidance. We need it today from respected quarters. Taking the body as a whole, under the Lord’s hand, can it be provided?
Lessons From Judges
Neither Eli nor Samuel was prepared to exercise the kind of control and guidance that was sufficiently effective to influence beneficially their own sons, let alone the community. With no recorded resolute attempt to deal with the situation, the nation suffered terribly.
“And there came a man of God unto Eli . . . Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at my offering which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel, my people? . . . Behold the days come that I will cut off thine arm and the arm of thine father’s house that there shall not be an old man in thine house.” 1 Sam. 2:27-31.
“And it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel . . . and his sons walked not after his ways but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes and perverted judgment. Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said unto him, Behold thou art old and thy sons walk not after thy ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” 1 Sam. 8: 1-5.
It is clear that two fathers who did not speak out against their sons’ behaviour — nay, aided and abetted their disgraceful activities by advancing them to positions of authority — were greatly responsible for driving the children of Israel to look for something better and thus into asking for a king, to replace a corrupt system. Two indulgent elders who refused to face up to declining standards and do something effective about it, have to share some of the shame of a nation accounted as having rejected God (1 Sam. 8 : 7). When eldership surrenders the responsibility of providing a positive lead; when eldership refuses to take the initiative to break a deadlock or help a difficult situation, then the community in its entirety eventually will suffer. We, world-wide, are beginning to see the truth of that principle now.
British Jews Speak Out
One key to healthy growth is the ability to stand back, assess ourselves against the standards of Christ and then do something effective about the deficiencies we find. The London “Jewish Chronicle” is trying to provoke a similar process among British Jews which has its lessons. Editorial of May 12th, 1972 “Landlords and Morality”.
“There is a time to be silent and a time to speak out. The Talmudic Rabbi, called upon to pronounce upon a delicate ethical problem where publicity could do harm, at first complained: “Woe if I speak, woe if I do not speak,” but eventually decided to speak out in the name of justice. A Jewish newspaper is torn between the obligation to call attention to questionable conduct on the part of some Jews and sense of responsibility which shrinks from providing any ammunition to the anti-semite, all too ready to blame the whole group for the failings of any of its members. If we now lay bare an ominous situation, it is precisely because Judaism sets such lofty standards of commercial integrity that the Jewish community is rightly disturbed at any departure from these standards . . . The Biblical laws legislating for a comparatively simple, agricultural, pre-industrial society, cannot be applied directly to the contemporary situation. But the principle behind these laws is clear enough. No man has the right to exercise such absolute power over wealth, land and other property that he waxes rich through the impoverishment of others. What else is the meaning of the Jubilee year, when slaves went free and land that had been sold reverted to its original owners? What else is the meaning of the laws regarding the redemption of land from a powerful landowner? What else is the meaning of the year of release when outstanding debts had to be cancelled? (There follows a quote from Exodus). We are aware that many Jews are exemplary landlords and also that some of those more concerned for their own enrichment than with morality are known for their charitable donations on a generous scale. But the Rabbis taught a long time ago that God is not to be bribed by good deeds and that a MITZVA which derives from an AVERAH is no MITZVA at all. Beyond an appeal to all landlords concerned to live up to the standards expected by the faith they possess, little can be done at the moment. It is sad that the Orthodox rabbinate has not made its voice heard on this crucial issue — a silence which only emphasises the growing gap between religion and morality.”
“The Believer” committee well understands the sort of dilemma some U.K. Jews find themselves in — to discuss openly a weakness so that it may be recognised and tackled and risk supplying “ammunition”; or to aid and abet wrong behaviour and conduct by being silent in order not to rock the boat and risk a greater Israel-like calamity. Scripture amply illustrates the dangers of the latter course. If the Jews of Britain can show concern for the reputation and well-being of their community and make use of Scripture to reinforce a call for reform in such practical matters, it well behooves the Christadelphians, so closely connected in so many other ways, to take a good look at this open and objective self-criticism for inspiration and assistance in the much more vital matter of our spiritual welfare and fellowship sickness. What is more important — rent control or spiritual well-being? If some Jews are provoked to call for reforms about rent mismanagement, should not we be at least equally active in calling for fellowship reforms?
We, too, find it “sad” that in past years our orthodox elders “have not made their voice heard on this crucial issue — a silence which only emphasises the growing gap between religion and morality.” We hasten to add it is pleasing to note that the ecclesial elders, near and far, now seem more prepared to face the issue and speak out. Not a moment too soon — it was almost too late. There have been too many signs of desperation in the brotherhood — too many years of stalled reunion talks, too many blind eyes and fence sitters, too many uncommitted and non-committal while “every man did that which was right in his own eyes”.
A Co-ordinated Lead
While we do right to avoid centralised authority with all the abuses of power that follows, the opposite extreme of uncoordinated effort, sometimes at cross purposes, occasionally in outright competition or boycott, only leads to self-destruction. Past reforms were inspired by good leadership; the first century preaching was organised and directed from Antioch (Acts 13 : 1), later by Paul himself (Eph. 6 : 22, Col. 4 : 8, 1 Thess. 3 : 2, 2 Tim. 4 : 9, Tit. 3 : 12); the Jerusalem Conference of representatives of all parties gave sound guidance and instruction in specific terms (Acts 15 : 6). The Scriptural example is leadership and guidance by co-operating elders.
Where can we find it today? Except for the childishness of not recognising other’s committees, the organisation in Australia exists. The reunion committees in America provide a basis there. England is the least organised and, both traditionally and otherwise, is the source from which the most beneficial of influences could come. The Christadelphian world needs the “Jerusalem Conference” type ministrations of the most capable brethren our world-wide body can assemble to set in motion the process of healing not only the deep wounds in Australia but the stubborn division in America.
It is a sad reflection that we have gone so far as to need a doctor/lawyer type ethics committee — it is sickening for example, to see a bundle of renewed circulars about the alleged sins of Petrie Terrace Ecclesia and Bro. Herb Twine in the possession of an American brother 7,000 miles away and used at a combined American Ecclesial meeting.
We shall destroy ourselves if a better way cannot be forthrightly presented by a group of brethren who have the respect of all. It can be done — it must be done. It needs the commitment of some who perhaps would rather not be connected with such unedifying tasks. But “blessed are the peacemakers” — surely an unavoidable application of Mat. 5: 9. Neither Eli nor Samuel could bring himself to that unpleasant task that was needful; and a whole community was lost. The U.K. Rabbis are being criticised for not speaking out against misconduct. Can the Christadelphian community do better? We must try.
What Is To Be Done?
The world scene calls for wisdom from respected brethren meeting together to thrash out problems. A new kind of respect will need to be given to such leadership by all ecclesias.
This is not undermining local autonomy.
There are two extremes. One is total lack of communication and co-operation with resultant random and chaotic existence; the other is centralised policy, with which all are forced (overtly or otherwise) to comply. We cannot afford to forfeit the benefits of the middle ground —sound advice and leadership, with ecclesias free to decide on their own degree of application. At present we are much nearer the first extreme than the ideal, with a small section opting for the second extreme.
To the extent that outside guidance is in accord with the principles of Scripture, let us have the good grace to follow it. If any outside group advises your ecclesia in terms beyond these principles; if any want to meddle in local details of organisation — then call a halt. But it is obvious on the world scene, that ecclesias working individually and autonomously have not and will not overcome the obstacles before us.
We can call for leadership now. How about a letter to the Editorial Columns of “The Christadelphian” magazine suggesting a world representative committee?
In Australia, there are ecclesias who do not respect or support the organisations which already exist. Do we all know how much the Central Standing Committee can do, and how much it could do if it was pressed into action by our enthusiastic support? And the Fellowship Committee ought to be known and recognised by all! A letter of support to that committee would be a start. We will only receive the help and guidance we ask for. If such committees are ignored, undermined or not even recognised they have their hands helplessly tied.
Fellowship is not our only problem. We are concerned at the lack of guidance given, for example, to the younger brethren and sisters who battle against an immoral world. We fear that even at the grass roots level, local ecclesial elders do not always take a firm, consistent and organised stand on what our conduct should be. If such be the case, can we expect a healthy ecclesia of tomorrow or expect to stem the tide of malpractice and misrepresentation evident in ecclesial affairs today?
Fellowship with the Maker and Brethren