The Birmingham Resolution which appeared page 53 (March) is an echo of early days, and has led to some questioning about the motive behind its reprinting, especially the section relating to giving hymn books to visiting strangers and inviting them to join in the singing and the offering of praise. Was the purpose to show how the brotherhood had developed in its public relations ? Was it to advocate a return to past practices ? Or was it merely the presentation of a curiosity ?
Different people will view the Resolution variously, yet all will sense the zeal and sincerity in its direct dogmatism, which reflects the more simple devotion to truth of days which in comparison with ours knew less of sophistication and more of spiritual culture. But the Resolution calls for more than respect for its boldness ; there must also be an attempt to appreciate in truth the convictions which produced it. These days are different in many ways, for better or for worse. The sixties of last century were certainly dogmatic, but behind the dogmatism was faith, and faith determined the wording of that Resolution. With the turn of the century faith began to give way to science, and gradually the outlook of the ecclesias has been modified by a need to dogmatise less about things that are undemonstrable and unprovable.
The dogmatic utterances were intended to uphold the clear simplicity of the truth and to defend it against the tendency to compromise. They might have done so had it not been for the frailty of human nature. The Resolution was aimed at making strangers, and even the children of the brethren, aware that salvation depends on believing truly, obeying and finally entering into the covenant with God through the only way appointed. Anything that bordered on a compromise of this was to be shunned. But that ideal failed because human nature turned the dogmatic belief into a disguised form of pride, and the pride led to contentiousness, which brought the strict dogmas into contempt.
There are lessons to be learned from the contemplation of these things—lessons concerned with personal attitudes and opinions, fashions of thought, contemporary moods, patience in dealing with other people’s ideas and ways and, above all, with the intrinsic stability of truth’ And the contemplation of these questions is aided by bearing in mind some of the dogmatisms of this present day—equally unreasoned, unpractical and profitless by modern ways of thinking.
The history of Israel provides many examples of the same sort of sincere dogmatism. The first that comes to mind is the hasty zeal of Zerubbabel and the chief of the fathers in replying to the offer of help from the Samaritans : “Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God ; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel, as king Cyrus king of Persia has commanded us.” But the asperity of the reply, did it arise from political suspicions ? or national pride ? or hatred of strangers ? Whatever it was, it did not reflect the vision of Isaiah : “The sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee . . ‘ that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles” (Isa. 60. 10-11). And in any case the asperity produced no profit for the moment or for the future ; it stopped the rebuilding for twenty years, and the boasted separateness of Israel played itself out in less than eighty years, for it is recorded that Ezra (9. 2) heard with distress that “the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of those lands”, and in addition Nehemiah was confronted with the unjust servitude which rich Jews had clamped upon their less fortunate brethren. Both reformers had to castigate these evils which were so uncharacteristic of the “chief of the fathers”, and then they had to restrain the unreasonable penitence of their corrected subjects which would have turned the glad festival of Tabernacles into mourning and fasting. Human nature is nothing if it does not run to conflicting extremes, and once again, before many years had passed, Tobiah the Past Ways And The Present scornful Ammonite was elaborately ensconced in the precincts of the Temple itself. There are times when dogmatisms need to be restrained for fear of human pride.
It is good to ask, -Does God exclude strangers from worshipping him ?” and to find a partial answer in the words of Peter, -I perceive that God is no respecter of persons ; but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10. 34). The Mosaic ordinances give further instructions with -yes” and -no” according to circumstances’ For example, a stranger was not to eat of the Passover unless he had first been circumcised according to the national institution, yet at the same time he was obliged to respect the national injunction against leaven in any of the dwellings within the land. He was not, however, barred from worship, but was encouraged to present his sacrifices before the Lord (Numb. 14. 16), although no stranger was permitted to trespass into the priestly functions (Numb. 16. 40).
The general trend of scripture, therefore, is to make a distinction between the “children” of the promise and strangers dwelling amongst them, and at the same time to make provision whereby all men should pay homage to the Lord of heaven and earth.
The pattern of 1868 has given way to a different fashion ; whether for better or for worse will depend not upon fashion so much as upon faithful observance of divine principles in life. “Every man does what is right in his own eyes ; but God pondereth the hearts.” He sees behind the facade of resolutions and measures things by the motivating factors that produce results which are not always under human control, Fashions pass, but truth and divine principals stand unmoveable.
Fellowship with the Maker and Brethren