Many of our readers will have seen the lengthy review of “Sects and Society” in “The Christadelphian” in November and December last year. Some may have read the even longer article on it in the “Mutual” Magazine. In a general way that is surely enough. However, a copy of this book recently came my way, and I feel impelled to add a sidelight of history which it lacks.
For those who are unaware of the existence of this book, let me explain that it is a sociological study of three distinct religious groups: the Elim Four Square Gospel Church, the Christian Scientists and the Christadelphians. In addition to the above reviews, the “Mutual” published a background article concerning the author, Bryan Wilson, by Bro. John Maycock, with whom he was a fellow student at the University College, Leicester, England. He tells us that the book was written as an examination thesis; that Wilson was at one time closely interested in Christian Science but is now agnostic, and that he is a lecturer at Leeds University.
As an outside investigation into the history and affairs of the Christadelphian body, it is likely that as an exhaustive study it may not be equalled. Copious quotations and references from our magazines, particularly from those of the last century and of the period of the First World War, throw a penetrating light on the struggles, divisions and controversies that have marred our history.
But it is a joyless record; the cold, calculating story fills one with embarrassment and sometimes with indignation. Statements made by able brethren, so apt and fitted to meet an immediate need, become a pointer to policy beyond the purpose of the original statement. Frankly, it is like having one’s private linen washed in public.
“Sects and Society” was published in 1961, but I gather it is meant only to cover the events up to about 1954. It is, therefore, incomplete, and it is regrettable that it was not possible to add an appendix telling of the successful re-union of 1957.
Of course, the Inspiration Division is recorded, but so little are the references to the “Fraternal Visitor” (the organ of the Suffolk Street Fellowship), that it has no place in the index. Whatever the merits or demerits of that division, it is again a regrettable omission that Wilson’s close inquiry into the Brotherhood did not include two letters published in “The Christadelphian” of September, 1952, which reaffirmed the belief of the Suffolk Street Fellowship in the full and complete inspiration of the Bible. And, as an item of history, it may be stated that those letters were not published by Bro. John Carter until he was satisfied following correspondence over a few months.
Without imputations of any kind, it is manifestly wrong to print only a part of a story and to let that be a record of a religious body’s history—for such it appears to be, despite the statement that what has been written is primarily a study of the Central Fellowship.
Christadelphian history is not by any means all schism and sorrow. It happens that my association with the Brotherhood began with a “chance” meeting between my father and a member of a small group known as the “Advocate” Fellowship.That was in 1912. I was a schoolboy. At the time we knew of no others. As our knowledge increased, we became aware of other sections. There was an ecclesia at Wortley Hall, Finsbury Park, London, of whom it was whispered that its members believed that the Bible was only partially inspired. We had no dealings with them! Then, one Sunday evening, a brother with curiosity aroused attended the public meeting. He reported his surprise at the soundness of the address and of his subsequent conversation with various members. What wonderful memories one has of the brethren of that ecclesia; at random we recall Brethren Pescod, F. Tanner, A. Joslin, R. W. Miller, George Alcock and many others. It seemed not so very long afterwards that negotiations were opened and in 1920 the Advocate and the Suffolk Street Fellowship were united.
It proved a wonderful and varied experience. As the years passed corners were rubbed off and the new found joys were expanded and increased, and in this we cannot overlook the work of the Christadelphian Mutual Improvement Societies Union.
It would be easy to enlarge on these experiences and recollections, but the bare statement is made as a sort of balance weight to the printed record of the book before me.
A chill runs down the spine when, glancing through the index, we see such items as, “Bereans (Christadelphian schism)”; Resurrectional Responsibility (Christadelphian schism)”; “Renunciationism (Christadelphian schism)”, and so on. However accurate his history as far as he knows, there is a lot that the author does not know.
He acknowledges considerable assistance given by various brethren and pays tribute to their attitude towards him. He makes a statement of what the Brotherhood believes, but there is never a mention of scripture to say why it holds such views. He says the gospel taught is the one Jesus preached, but never a word about the promises made to Abraham which is the distinguishing difference from other sects. There is the statement, “Ecclesial fellowship is regarded as being virtually a guarantee to eternal life since the ecclesia takes steps to purge from it any element considered unworthy, and which brings the ecclesia into disrepute”. The Truth is not to be demonstrated by human logic and no brother or sister of my acquaintance over the years would dare to make such a statement. When a decision to effect a withdrawal is made, those responsible well know and admit that the final analysis and verdict must be awaited at the judgment seat of Christ.
How the Elim Church or the Christian Scientists feel about the book, I do not know, but I think one matter which may be learned is that when we quote what another sect believes we must be sure to confirm our opinions and thus hope that others, in all fairness, will treat the Christadelphians likewise.
The Herald Reprint Project for 1860/61