Forty years in the Wilderness (Part 19) – A Word From Birmingham

A Word From Birmingham

Since commencing this series, the author has received, among other pertinent communi­cations, a brotherly note from the editor of ‘The Christadelphian’, Bro. John Carter. This letter refers principally to Article II, wherein I had proffered the proposition that a physical change is not necessarily a change of nature.

It was indicated that our ‘diverse’ conten­tious, on the matter of the effects of Adam’s sin, coalesce in that observation. I quoted ‘the pioneers’, showing that whilst they both claim ed that (i) Adam, as a result of transgression, underwent a physical change, they also claim­ed that (ii) this was not a change of nature. I suggested that by ‘B’ accepting (i) and ‘A’ accepting (ii) — which probably they would readily do — we had instant harmony on these points.

The quotation supplied from Bro. Roberts had appeared in ‘The Christadelphian’ 1921, p.25’7, having been reproduced by Bro. C. C. Walker (then editor) from ‘The Ambassador’ 1869. Bro. Carter wrote me to point out that ‘while reproducing it Bro. Walker indicated that later in life Bro. Roberts expressed him­self differently, in proof of which Bro. Walker reproduced the statement that Bro. Roberts drew up in 1896 in connection with the troubles in Melbourue’. Bro. Carter considered that I had ‘virtually misrepresented the facts’ by quoting Bro. Roberts’ 1869 statement, without indicating, as Bro. Walker did, Bro. Roberts’ subsequent ‘different’ expression of mind.

Bro. Carter’s letter comments:

“With re­gard to Bro. Roberts’ statement in 1869, I think it is only fair to quote also his words of explanation concerning his meaning, which appeared in ‘The Christadelphian’ 1877, page 471. Lest you have not access to this, I am sending you the November 1944 ‘Christadelphian’ where it was reproduced.”

Firstly, in fairness to all, we must indicate again the bearing of

The 1869 Statement

We quote once more from its reproduction in the 1921 ‘Christadelphian’, p.257: “WAS THE NATURE OF ADAM CHANGED AFTER HE SINNED IN EDEN? — A reply by Bro. Roberts to a correspondent who imagined there was a change in the nature of Adam after he sinned in Eden. — Taken from ‘The Ambassador’, March 1869.

“There is a misapprehension lurking under the proposition we are combating. Our friend imagines there was a change in the nature of Adam when he became disobedient. There is no evidence of this whatever, and the pre­sumption and evidence are entirely contrary to it. There was a change in Adam’s relation to his Maker, but not iu the nature of his organisation. What are the facts?” (Emphasis, H.W.) Bro. Roberts theu proceeded to give the facts, simply and soundly.

In view of such a forthright and explicit declaration, there seemed little need that Bro. Roberts, eight years later, should have volun­teered ‘words of explanation concerning his meaning’. The reason is manifest when it is remembered that during those years (1869-77) a momentous and tragic event occurred — the Turney division’ of 1873. As the fires of  controversy iuvariably light up the details of a subject, so it was then. After 1873 Bro. Roberts was no longer satisfied with his simple statement of 1869. And if ‘it is only fair to  quote also his words of explanation’, we now do so.

Words Of Explanation

These remarks of Bro. Roberts are from ‘The Christadelphian’ 1877, p.471 — repro­duced by Bro. Carter in the same magazine, 1944, p.127:—

“The article in The Christadelphian’ for March 1869, continues to represent our convictions on the subject of which it treats, viz. the relation of Jesus to the condemnation which we all inherit from Adam. On some details, however, of that general subject, we should, if we were writing it again, express ourselves more explicitly, in view of the searching controversy which has arisen on the subject of sin in the flesh.

We should guard ourselves against forms of expression which seem to favour the false ideas that have come to be advocated. In asserting, for instance, that there was no change in the nature of Adam in the crisis of his condemnation, we should add that though his nature continued of the order expressed in the phrase living soul’, a change occurred in the condition of that nature through the implantation of death, as recognised in the article in question, in the statement that death ran in the blood of Mary.

And on the subject of sin in the flesh, while retaining the declarations on page 83, as regards the operation of our moral powers, we should add that the effect of the curse was as defiling to Adam’s nature as it was to the ground which thenceforth brought forth briars and thorns: and that therefore, after transgression, there was a bias in the wrong direction, which he had not to contend with before transgression. Our mind has not changed on the general subject, but some of its details have been more clearly forced on our recognition by the movements and argu­ments of heresy.” (Emphasis mine, H.W.W.)

‘Details’

What are the vital points that emerge from this 1877 ‘explanation’? (i) Bro. Roberts ad­hered solidly to his previous conviction that Adam’s nature remaiued of the same order after transgression as before, although he now wished to add that there was a change in ‘the condition of’ that nature; (ii) his mind did not change on ‘the general subject’, but he more clearly recognised now some of its ‘details’.

And there lies the real ‘explanation’ of the whole miserable history — from 1873 in England to 1947 in Australia — details, de­tails, nothing but DETAILS! The bitter legacy has been passed on to the brethren of another generation, who have been taught to strive and divide over details; to debar each other if they caunot see eye to eye in these matters of detail — from the full and loving fellowship which is their right in Christ Jesus. Babes in Christ are expected to take sides over details; to fall in behind the ‘intelligentsia’ of their ecclesias in their aloof attitude towards their brethren, with the bludgeon of disfellow­ship held over them to ensure compliance. Brethren have been known to go so far as to make this undertaking, on the part of an applicant for baptism, one of the conditions on which they will condescend to administer the rite! Meanwhile, a ‘just’ and ‘jealous’ God looks on. But — He will not look on for ever.

‘The Searching Controversy’

In using this expression, Bro. Roberts alludes to the 1873 division. One must not be so unfair as to suggest that no doctrinal inaccuracies were involved in that dispute, but I definitely suggest that rectification and con­ciliation could — aud probably would — have resulted, had not ‘personal feeling’ been allow­ed to predominate.

Such a remark is not the product of my own ‘wishful thinking’. I know of no brother living today (1947) who is better qualified to analyse that matter than our respected Bro. Islip Collyer. In ‘The Testimony’ 1944, in an impartial ‘character study’ of Robert Roberts, he divulges some illuminating facts. I deem it a duty to present them; and quote from pages 151-2:

“The year 1873 brought controversy and div­ision to the brotherhood. It seems inevitable that there should be such evils among men who hold strong convictions on matters which they regard as of vital importance.. When minor dif­ferences of opinion cannot be adjusted, however, it is often mainly because there is a clash of personalities. The divergence of judgment may be serious, but it is not nearly so difficult to deal with faulty arguments as with faulty human feelings.

Thirty years ago the present writer, (i.e. Bro. Collyer) gave offence to some elders by suggest­ing that the division was the result of personal­ities far more than of clashing convictions. It was indignantly asked, ‘What does this young man know about the matter?’

It might have been answered that even those who lived through the trouble would gain most of their knowledge from that which was written, for the arguments were most plainly stated in the written word. The ‘young man’ had read it all more recently and perhaps more carefully than the elders who criticised him. He had theadded advantage of certain private information from his father which really left no room for doubt on the subject. It seemed inadvisable at that time, however, to mention revelations from behind the scenes, so the elders were unanswered.

The writer was convinced that somewhere R.R. had expressed the same conviction that personal feeling was at the root of the trouble, but he could not at that time find the passage to which memory insistently pointed. As often happens in such matters, the passage was found too late. Memory was not at fault, for the editorial com­ment was much more definite than the questioning suggestion which had offended the elders.” (emphasis, H.W.W.)

The Lifted Veil

Bro. Collyer proceeds to narrate certain incidents in which David Handley, Robert Roberts and Edward Turney figured promin­ently. He writes of ‘feelings of resentment’ developing between Brethren Turney and Roberts, and remarks: “The main trouble arose from a very little matter, and the activity of the ‘little member’ (Jas. 3:5) which may cause so great a fire.” He continues with reference to friction arising between the two brethren over the chairmanship of some lec­tures ‘given in a Midland town’, and com­ments that happenings there were ‘not the only cause of ruffled feelings’. Finally, he asks: “Who was this man who not only took the lead like a divinely appoiuted prophet, but presumed to rebuke men older than himself, treating them as junior pupils whose knuckles might be rapped by the master? Anger and resentment were aroused and tragedy follow­ed.”

Bro. Collyer’s epilogue to the ‘character study’ is: “We have only lifted the veil a little way, just to reveal a characteristic of the man” (R.R.) “whose life we are following. He was always sincere, but it is not given to man always to be wise.”

How very trumpery are the foundations of some of our divisions!

‘Personal Feeling’

By no means do we diminish our thankful­ness, before God, for the work of Robert Roberts. ‘To err is human’ and Bro. Roberts, for all his faith and works, like Abraham,David, Paul, and all other great and good men was essentially human. We can admire his candour and magnanimity in later confessing that ‘personal feeling was at the root of the trouble’.

Bro. Collyer’s fearless analysis has shown us that when the tumult and the shouting dies and the post-mortems are held, the startling discovery is made that by a little more control of tongues and feelings the whole terrible tragedy could have been averted. By then, of course, it is too late, but the verdict may be a guide and warning for the future, and even for the present.

‘Revelations from behind the scenes’, if not made now, will certainly be disclosed in a day that is nigh at hand, when every unworthy action and motive, unrepented of, will be brought to the searching light of judgment (1 Cor. 4:5). It is as well to examine ourselves now and to advance our ‘questioning sugges­tions’, even if they do ‘offend the elders’.

Contact with brethren on either side, who have taken a personal part in the Australian controversy, indicates that they still are smart­ing under the sting of acrimonious remarks made, in some cases, more than 30 years ago. They still maintain their vindictiveness. Either they forgive and forget now, or take the con­sequences later for keeping open the wounds in the body corporate of Christ. Any bitter­ness still lingering as a result of earlier friction acts today as a cause in the perpetuation of dis-union. We must eradicate it from our hearts completely — now. (Ephes. 4:31, 32).

‘The Subject Of Sin In The Flesh’

This was a matter on which, in 1873, as Bro. Roberts states in his ‘explanation’, much ‘searching controversy’ arose. Did that justify an intimate knowledge of this ‘detail’ being required as a condition of fellowship with God after 1873, whereas it had not been required before?

Recently, in the presence of a number of brethren of both ‘sides’, I asked a brother (who has consistently championed the cause of division in this country), if he would indi­cate from the Scriptures where an understanding of ‘the subject of sin in the flesh’ was required in apostolic times before a person was deemed fit to be inducted into the family of God. He had the effrontery to contend that when Philip expounded to the Ethiopian eunuch the prophet’s reference to the slaying of ‘the Lamb of God’ (Isa. 53), such exposi­tion would of necessity include a detailed discourse upon ‘sin in the flesh’!

Readers can form their own conclusions. It is obvious that the case for division on this point is based entirely on presumption. Such flimsy foundations will never withstand the scrutiny of judgment. We might as well realise it now!

One admits that, in view of the prevailing false doctrines of the apostacy, we must ask an applicant for baptism more than was asked in the days of Philip and Paul. Once having satisfied ourselves, however, that the caudidate subscribes to the ‘one faith’ as required by the apostles before baptism, in its unadulterated simplicity, we dare not demand more for the purpose of fellowship. The Master was un­sparing in his denuuciation of those people who, in any way, ‘hindered’ those who were ‘entering in’. (Luke 11:52). We do well to remember it.

‘The Implantation Of Death’

Bro. Roberts’ explanation’ of 1877 showed that he believed, at least from 1873 onwards, that ‘death’ was implanted in Adam when he sinned. The language here is surely meton­ymic, and nebulous figures of speech are surely out of place in an explanation.

Literally, as Bro. Roberts had shown earlier and with considerable stress (‘Christendom Astray’ — written in 1862 — p38), “Death is the cessation of living existence”, the ‘inter­ruption’, ‘negation’, ‘stopping’, ‘opposite’, ‘ab­sence or departure’ of life. At the same time he clearly taught: “The death resulting from Adam’s transgression is a dissolution of being in the grave” (p.146). He strenuously fought “soul-immortalism to show that a ‘soul’ cannot possibly be ‘full of death’ and at the same time ‘full of life’, or alive. Obviously, there­fore, when in 1877 he claimed that death was implanted in a ‘living soul’, we must attach to his use of the term ‘death’ quite a different value from that which he gave it himself in his 1862 definitions.

We repeat an earlier suggestion: Christa­delphians should make up their minds anew what death really is. In his lecture ‘The Atone­ment’, Bro. C. C. Walker asked, ‘What is death?’ and wisely replied, “Upon a right understanding to this fundamental question will depend a right understanding of ‘the atonement.” (p.8)

Bro. Roberts’ Statement Of 1896

This, as Bro. Carter remarks, was ‘drawn up in connection with the troubles in Mel­bourne’. Many readers will be familiar with it. It is a series of 11 propositions, couched in language which is not altogether free from obscurity.

For instance, Bro. Roberts’ definition of ‘death’, as supplied in the `C.Astray’ lectures, could never be fitted into some of his uses of the same term in this 1896 statement. With a man of Bro. Roberts’ unusual literary abil­ity, his meanings may have been abundantly clear to himself; but neither he, nor anyone else, has any right whatever to foist those expressions upon others for unreserved en­dorsement.

I am not questioning the truth of what Bro. Roberts meant to convey in the said proposi­tions. To the best of my knowledge, the salient points embraced therein are accepted by both sides.

Of 55 proofs appended, the bulk are from the letters to the Romans and to the Hebrews; epistles which, by common consent, are the most profound in the New Testament. To ask believers for an understanding of the ‘deep things’ of ‘Romans’ and ‘Hebrews’, before admitting them to fellowship in Christ, is to assume a risk which wise men everywhere will hesitate to share.

Bro. Carter comments in his letter:

“What is clear is that, from the time of the Turney trouble in 1873, he (Bro. Roberts) never altered in his presentation of the truth which we be­lieve concerning the effects of Adam’s trans­gression upon his physical nature.”

To which one must add: What is also trans­parently clear is that ‘from the time of the Tumey trouble in 1873’ Bro. Roberts was

much better primed in matters of detail than in 1862, or even 1869. There is no crime in the discovery of details. The crime lies in their inclusion in a basis of fellowship, and in their importation, as such, into another generation.

Here is the point: I have not yet — neither have you — met the Christadelphian brave enough to aver that Robert Roberts, prior to his recoguition of these ‘details’ (i.e. prior to 1873) was unfit for fellowship with the house­hold of God. You won’t meet him, either!

What diabolical absurdity, then, lies in the policy which today makes the knowledge and belief of these very details a test of one’s fit­ness for fellowship with Christ!

‘Resistance’ And ‘Toleration’

The closing paragraph of Bro. Carter’s letter implies that we should not tolerate in fellowship those whose views we do not fully approve. This may hold good where there is persistent and incorrigible denial of essential truth, but we surely cannot apply it as a general rule.

First, we have to be quite sure that we have rightly understood the ‘heretic’s’ mind. There are, I am certain, many cases where this con­ditiou has not been fulfilled.

Secondly, we are our brother’s keeper; not his loser. If satisfied that our brother is in error, we must exhaust every possibility of reclamation. As an alternative to summary excision — usually regarded as the valiant and proper method of dealing with those whose faith is defective — one cannot recom­mend too highly the formula followed by Aquila and Priscilla. Having heard the elo­quent Apollos and recognising his limited knowledge, ‘they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly’ (Acts 18:25-26). By this method many have been helped to a more complete understanding of the Way of Life. By the other process many have been repelled from the Truth, never to return. Their blood could be ou our hands!

Thirdly, severance of fellowship is not the only means of resisting an erroneous idea. As showu before, the mere act of being present at the same table of the Lord does not, of itself, constitute an endorsement of the views and actions of every brother and sister present thereat. To teach that it does is a false inter­pretation of 2 John 10, 11. By 1898 Bro. Roberts himself came to appreciate that fact. (‘Christadelphian’ 1923, p.255.)

It is fallacious reasoning, therefore, when a brother contends — as a prominent Aus­tralian brother receutly did — that unless you promptly sever fellowship with an erring saint you are ‘turning a blind eye to his errors, Nelson-like’. By tolerating a brother in fellow­ship we do not necessarily support his wrong views any more than the Father Himself, by tolerating us in fellowship, approves our im­perfections.

Unless the God of Abraham and David proves more tolerant of us than we have been of His sons and daughters, I fear we shall stand small chance of surviving His judgment; and, unless our hearts are turned each to each before ‘the coming of the great and dreadful Day of the Lord’, we may find ourselves at last smitten ‘with a curse’.

An Appeal

To a brother occupying a key position in the Household and commanding the high regard of the entire Brotherhood, there comes the golden opportunity to employ his talents, influence and probity in removing misunderstanding, anomalies and injustices which hold the brethren apart.

As editor of ‘the Christadelphian’, a magazine “dedicated wholly to ‘THE HOPE OF ISRAEL’ ”—for which hope’s sake thousands of his brethren today are bound with the fetters of ostracism and contempt _ he can discharge with honour a unique responsibility “with a view to making ready A PEOPLE PREPARED FOR THE LORD”.