The Command to Love
The Lord Jesus commanded His disciples to love one another “as I have loved you” (John 13:34). This is far more than tolerance and occasional co-operation. Christ’s love for us was more than tolerance and co-operation — it was complete involvement temptation (Heb. 4:15), suffering (Heb. 2:10), self-sacrifice (Heb. 9:26), being made sin for us (2 Cot. 5:21), personal indwelling (Rev. 3:20), eternal patience and intercession (Heb. 7:25); “and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20).
To what lengths must we go in our love for one another if our love is to be ‘as Christ loved us’?
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35) Jesus has given the world a right to judge us. Where there is no love exhibited between brethren; where there is instead bickering, dissension and division, the world is entitled to say, “these people are not disciples of Christ”. And today the world is saying just that.
If our unity is a unity of love, how can love exist without expression? The unity of the New Testament ecclesias found expression in a visible fellowship. They ‘met’ and they ‘shared’ (Acts 2:41-47).
Diversity In Unity
We have only to look at the writings of the apostles, the four Gospel records, the epistles of Paul, Peter, James and John, to see the wide diversity of ideas and attitudes, which were matched by a variety of gifts within each local eccIesia. But underlying this diversity was a unity of the spirit, which caused Paul to stress that the various gifts were held together in Christ. “For Christ is like a single body, with its many limbs and organs, which, many as they are, together make up one body. For indeed we were all brought into one body by baptism…” (1 Car. 12:12, 13 — N.E.B.).
Diversity is only a diversity if it is also a unity. Otherwise it is not diversity, but division. Paul’s image in 1 Con 12 is a clear indication that unity in Christ is not intended to be a dull uniformity, but a rich diversity.
The Principle of Division
Jesus told His disciples plainly that He had not come to give peace on earth but rather division. “Think ye that I am come to give peace in the earth? I tell you, nay; but rather division” (Luke 12:51). The Greek word for division here is DIAMERISMOS, which denotes a discussion, dissension, division or discord, breaking up of family ties (Vine). Jesus is stating what may happen when some members in a family are converted.
Jesus knew that it was inevitable that belief in Himself and commitment to Himself would cause dissension, discord and division in family relationships. He experienced this with His own family, “For even His brethren did not believe on Him” (John 7:5).
There is a clear distinction between those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and those who do not. Jesus emphasised this on the occasion of the briefing of His disciples for their first mission (Matt. 10). He warned them to expect opposition to their preaching (vv. 1-25); but reminded them of the Father’s care (vv. 26-33). He warned them of the consequences of acceptance of the Gospel — they would incur the enmity of relatives of those converted; there would be enmity, dissension; discord and division in families;
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (v. 35).
Finally Jesus gave His disciples the tests by which they would know when a convert was genuine in his commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ:
“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or he that doth not take his cross, and follow after me, daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And is not worthy of me” (vv. 37, 38) (cf Luke 14:26, 27).
These verses have been frequently wrested from their context and wrongly applied to justify separation and division within the brotherhood. The verses express the inevitable division between the Truth and the world; between Christ and the prince of this world.
The Principle of Unity
It is in the context of this Principle of Division that Christ makes His demands for commitment to Himself. Nowhere does Jesus demand or even suggest any division among those who are within the Brotherhood, those who have separated from the world, and are baptised into His Name. On the contrary, for these, the Principle of Unity is expressed in Christ’s prayer for His own, recorded in John 17:
In v. 6 Jesus describes the people for whom He is praying — “the men whom Thou gayest me out of the world”.
In v. 20 He links with these “them also that believe on me through their word.”
In vv. 14 and 17 He emphasises the division between His people and the world. “The world hated them;” “they are not of the world”; “they are in the Truth”.
In v. 21 Jesus expresses the fundamental unity of His people — “That they may all be one; even as Thou Father art in me and I in thee; that they also may be one in us…”
This is an unbreakable, indivisible unity —”even as Thou Father art in me and I in Thee”! Have we even begun to comprehend the nature of this unity? This is Christ’s Principle of Unity within the Brotherhood. It can only be broken by the actions of men in deliberate violation of Christ’s Principle of Unity:
- Men fulfilling the lusts of the flesh “now the works of the flesh are… divisions… (Gal. 5:19, 20) R.V. The word Paul uses here is DICHOSTASIA, meaning ‘a standing apart’ (Vine). It is translated `seditious’ A.V., ‘divisions’ R.V. This verse is followed by the warning in v. 21 that “… they which practise such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.” Paul uses the same word in Rom. 16:17 where he enjoins believers to mark those who cause divisions and to avoid them.
- Those who leave the Truth and renounce their faith. This becomes once more a division between the Truth and the World. “For Demas forsook me, having loved this present world…” (2 Tim. 4:10) These too, forfeit their inheritance in the Kingdom: “… No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:62)
Division is thus the result of:
- The carnal spirit. for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and division (Dichostasia) are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” (1 Cor. 3:3).
- Apostasy “they went out from us” i.e. left the truth (1 John 2:18, 19).
Divisions because of Jesus
There were many divisions among people during Jesus’ ministry — divisions because of what He is, because of what He said, and because of what He did — divisions between those who believed on Him and those who did not; divisions because of HIM:
- His person (John 7:40-43) “Some said this is of a truth the prophet” (v. 40) “others said, ‘This is the Christ’ ” (v. 41) “So there arose a division (SCHISMA) in the multitude because of Him” (v. 43).
- His teaching (John 6:53-58, 60-69) “… This is a hard saying — who can hear it”? (v. 60) “Upon this many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him.” (v. 66) (The twelve remained with Jesus, v. 67, 68) John 10 — “I am the door:” (v. 7) “I am the good shepherd” (vv. 11, 14) “Other sheep I have..” (v. 16) “I lay down my life that I may take it again” (v. 17) “There arose a division (SCHISM) among the Jews because of these words”. (v. 19)
- His work (John 9:14-16) — (Jesus had opened the eyes of the blind man on the sabbath) “Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This man is not from God because He keepeth not the Sabbath…” (v. 16) .. But others said, how can a man that is a sinner do such signs?” And there was a division (SCHISMA) among them” (v. 16)
In all three cases the Greek word translated `division’ is the word SCHISMA, meaning ‘acleft or rent’, ‘a breaking apart’ (Vine). The meaning is illustrated in Matt. 9:16 (Mark 2:21), where it is translated ‘rent’, signifying a breaking apart of a garment. This is the word Paul uses in 1 Cor. 1:10 — “Now I beseech you, brethren, through 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 perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment”. The same word is used again in 1 Cor. 12:25 — “That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another”.
Behaviour reveals doctrine as sound or unsound
Much has been said about purity of doctrine on the ground that it is “what Christadelphians have believed ever since their inception”. But Jesus made it clear that the test of doctrine is not in its roots but in its fruits. He said: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits…” (Matt. 7:16).
These words were spoken in the context of conduct and behaviour. This association of doctrine (teaching) with conduct (practice) occurs wherever we have reference to the teaching of Jesus, e.g. “… the people were astonished at His doctrine (leaching’ — R.V., Young)” (Matt. 7:28). Jesus had been speaking about the importance of practising His teaching; of doing the things He taught.
God “will render to every man according to his deeds” (what he practises) (Rom. 2:6). What we do is more important than what we say. “Actions speak louder than words”. Jesus taught this by the parable of the two sons, who were told to go work in the vineyard. The one said, “I will not”, but afterwards went. The other said, “I go Sir”, and went not. It was the first who did the will of his father (Matt. 21:28-31).
Whatever a man may say concerning his beliefs, “as he thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7). Doctrinal belief will inevitably find expression in behaviour, and this is the real test of doctrine.
Paul’s warning — “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” — has been frequently taken out of context and misapplied to support the disfellowship of an individual on the ground of false teaching. But on the two occasions on which Paul makes this statement it is made not in the context of teaching but in the context of behaviour. In 1 Cor. 5:6 it is stated in relation to immorality, and in Gal. 5:9, in relation to works of the flesh (“if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” v. 15) in contrast to works of the Spirit. In both cases it is the behaviour of brethren that Paul is concerned with, because it is a reflection of their inner thinking.
It is significant that the ecclesias who have been most outspoken in regard to the doctrines of other individuals and ecclesias, are themselves the ones who are indeed dividing brethren. While claiming to recognise no distinction between ecclesias (“We do not recognise the distinction; to us they are all brethren” —Supplement to ‘Logos’, January, 1972, p. 7) they are following the practice of division between brethren and between ecclesias, contrary to Christ’s Principle of Unity. Claiming to be defenders of pure doctrine, they show by their contempt of the fellowship of the brethren that they have not the mind of Christ.
Christ’s Principle of Unity is denied by any group which refuses another group within the Brotherhood. The whole principle of meeting as members of the Body of Christ — the meeting together in love of baptised believers, walking in godliness and patiently keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, is repudiated by such a group. Instead, ‘agreement with the group’ becomes the rule of meeting, the Headship of Christ is denied, and the group proclaims itself a sect like any other sect, with its members obeying the edicts of men.
The underlying philosophy of this group and its dangers to the Brotherhood is revealed in the `end-piece’ to page 416 of the Logos Magazine for August 1972, which states: “There is nothing harder to conquer than the individual point of view. Yet conquer it we must, if we are to open our mind to the fulness of the Truth, for sun, moon and stars existed before we were born.”
With their ‘fellowship’ firmly centred in the teaching of men (“our attitude to fellowship is in keeping with the Central Fellowship since the days of Robert Roberts”) the leaders of this group, apparently quite unable to conceive that any view other than their own has the slightest possible merit, are obviously determined that everyone must conform to their point of view and their way of doing things. Individuals must cease to think for themselves and cease to exercise their own minds upon the Word of God!
In the midst of divisions at Corinth, Paul exhorted, “stand fast in the faith” (1 Cor. 16:13); and he was not speaking to any particular group. He was drawing them all back to their one Head, Christ. This is the only solution to the present controversy.
Christ the only ‘Pioneer’ of our Faith
Far too much weight has been given to what men have said. The writings of Bro. Thomas, Bro. Roberts and others have been quoted in support of quite divergent points of view. The net result has been to make these brethren appear to be the most inconsistent and double-minded of men.
What Bro. Thomas, Bro. Roberts or any other writers have said is only of value in so far as it leads us to Christ. Scripture says nothing concerning Bro. Thomas or Bro. Roberts being the pioneers of our faith. Scripture points us to “Jesus the author (pioneer) and finisher (perfecter) of our faith” (Heb. 12:2).
Bro. Thomas and Bro. Roberts performed outstanding service to the Truth. Bro. Thomas opened up new insights into the meaning of Scripture, but he made no claim to have any special revelation. He directed his readers to the Scriptures of Truth, and invited them to consider his writings in the light of the Word of God. Today, some would have us read the Word of God in the light of Bro. Thomas or Bro. Roberts!
Which Voice shall we heed?
In a letter circulated in September 1971, five Adelaide suburban ecclesias make a plea for the acceptance of their particular interpretation of the doctrine of the atonement. We may well question the truth of their statement — “In summary our position is absolutely that of the Central Fellowship. The ‘Christadelphian’ editors from Brother Roberts on, have spoken with one voice on this subject and we endorse this position entirely”.
This statement is contradicted by the editorial in ‘Logos’, January 1972, which criticises certain aspects of the article “For Whom Christ Died” published in the ‘Christadelphian’, August 1971, and finally expresses agreement with a reservation!
One need only compare the articles “For Whom Christ Died” and “The Living Ecclesia” in the August 1971 ‘Christadelphian’ and the article “Fellowship — its Spirit and Practice” in the January 1972 ‘Christadelphian’, with articles on the same topics in ‘Logos’, to observe that the ‘Christadelphian’ writers display a frame of mind very different from that exhibited by the `Logos’ writers. Two quite different ‘minds’ are revealed by these two publications. We are to be united in one mind — which ‘mind’ is it to be?
We all have to choose our own company (Acts 4:23), and we always do so according to what we essentially are — “Birds of a feather flock together”. In the final analysis each one of us will go “to his own place” (Acts 1:25).
How helpful it would be if the VOICE of `Logos’ were to manifest the moderation and sweet reasonableness; the reconciling and unifying influence, which are characteristics of the VOICE of the ‘Christadelphian’.
Unity will not be achieved by any external pressure. It is the result of a common experience of believing in Christ as the revelation of the Father, expressing itself in a spiritual fellowship. By their actions many ecclesias have indicated that they have no real desire to share in such a fellowship.
The Only Solution to Ecclesial Problem
It is time the Brotherhood devoted more attention to the words and teaching of Jesus Christ. We are called to a unity ‘in Christ’, not to a unity in Bro. Thomas or Bro. Roberts or any other person (1 Cor. 1:9). It is Christ who creates unity where otherwise there would be none. “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and they shall become one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16) R.V.
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.” (Heb. 1:1, 2). “This is my beloved Son: bear him” (Mark 9:7).
Jesus said to His disciples “Henceforth I call you not servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you” (John 15:15). The prophets were mere servants who had an imperfect knowledge of the mind of God. God has now spoken in His Son, who is “one with the Father” (John 10:30). To Him has been given “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18) including the “authority to execute judgement” (John 5:27). We disregard HIS VOICE at our peril.
The only solution to the problems troubling the Brotherhood lies in a return to the Word of God, and a mutual re-examination of the revelation of God in His Son, Jesus Christ.
Fellowship with the Maker and Brethren