Being aware of the facts is a key part of making edifying decisions, of recognising deficiencies and of rescuing and reconstructing our battered community. Facts sometimes are hard to face, often hard to find when obscured; but without them, we are at the mercy of rumour, ignorance and error. “The Believer” presents here an abundance of facts, most of them unpleasant, for times are desperately critical.
We ask every brother and sister, in prayerful communion with our merciful Father, to examine them carefully and critically. Who is undermining our basis of Unity? Who is clamping the pressure on the brotherhood? Who is shouting loudly, peppering the ecclesias with circularised threats, spreading abroad photostat dossiers of other people’s papers? Who is actually dis-fellowshipping — “driving out” — actually now chiselling the dividing line? We sadly direct you to the article following this editorial. We know for a fact that many brethren are unaware that their own ecclesia has withdrawn from the Central Standing Committee. There will be many others presented with division “accompli” without knowing their ecclesia was a major instigator or having opportunity to object.
We take no pleasure in documenting the progress of the division that stares us in the face, but someone must sound the urgent alarm (Ezek. 33) that we are a sick community — partly from misdirected zeal, partly from deliberate ignorance or studied disinterest, the body unable to provide the resources to heal itself and God unwilling to work the miracle. Some would be quick to make judgment on a factional basis and lay the blame on the “other side”, but we all need to see the deficiencies all round.
Is the Logos group justified in some of their criticisms of weakness and mistakes? Most certainly yes! But we deplore the characteristic attitude in Logos folk that they are above reproach or mistakes and therefore in a position to dictate terms and anticipate Divine judgments (Matt. 7:2-5, N.E.B.) . “For as you judge others, so you yourselves will be judged, and whatever measure you deal out to others will be dealt back to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye, with never a thought for the great plank in your own? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye’, when all the time there is that plank in your own? You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s”.
Is it Christian humility that prompts the Logos editor to anticipate final condemnation of The Believer writers in appealing to them to “desist from a form of agitation that can only result in condemnation at Christ’s coming”? (p.384, Logos, July 1971) . We will make no prejudgments in any circumstances about any brother, preferring not to precipitate nor usurp the judgments of Christ and indeed we have had occasion before to complain in a letter to the Editor about this practice. Another presumptuous judgment was made in April 1968, Logos, p.234,
“Either Bro. Thomas is guilty of adding to the words of the prophecy and will merit the plagues written in the book or they (particular interpreters of Revelation) are guilty of taking away from the words of the prophecy of the book, with the consequence of having their part taken out of the book of life”.
Page 234 clearly eternally condemned these interpreters and the editor admitted in writing on 16.8.68 that this thought would have been better omitted. Further, we must take a strong stand about descent into personal sneers directed against our contributors and we make a strong appeal to Logos to abstain from disparaging personal remarks such as “obviously cloudy to the mind of Bro. Russell” and “we do not believe he understands the implications of his words” (p.381, July 1971).
Bro. Russell continues his series on the Atonement in which he also develops some problematical questions of interest. We also endorse the article “For Whom Christ Died”, distributed in Australia by The Christadelphian, prior to its publication in the August issue, as a simple, sound and sensible exposition of the Atonement which avoids objectionable extremes.
In pursuing our policy of being frank and open, we have published the names of our Committee, and our authors do not hide behind initials or nom-de-plumes. This honest approach has exposed them already to unpleasantness and there is real danger that advantage of this will be taken by others who are not so frank. We will not countenance the badgering of our personnel, by mail or otherwise, especially when others operate behind a cloak of anonymity. Our policy of speaking out frankly and providing facts on critical issues has borne fruit. Readers will be interested to know that our circulation is over 2,000; and 500 subscribers are testimony to the trust and sound support we have mustered in such a short time.
This wide appreciation has expanded the original concept of a duplicated circular into a creditable magazine, and we thank our Heavenly Father for this growing avenue of service. This great weight of responsibility dictates the necessity to explore our broader problems. In suggesting that Christ should be more at the centre of our Scriptural understanding, and our way of life more like his, Bro. Edgar Wile1 has added materially to the search for the reasons and motivations that have caused ecclesial turmoil. Yet we have to analyse this and still other suggestions to find out why, as a body, we have had continuous friction in our midst since our inception.
B. R. Wilson, in his book “Sects and Societies”, lists 10 different “heresies” which arose in the first 25 years of “Christadelphianism” and we can only too well comprehend the problems and animosity that would have been evident. History has continually repeated itself (so have the “heresies”) and we should seriously ask whether our community is troubled so much by divergence of thought as by the carnal mind being evident both in the “heretic” and the “heresy-hunter”.
The vast majority of ecclesias in Australia are satisfied with the Unity Basis of 1958, and have no reservations whatsoever about the integrity of Bro. Carter’s conclusions or contributions to its foundations. We strongly believe the editor of Logos, having been content, apparently, to espouse the Unity Basis of 1958 and having attempted to enforce strictly an extreme application of its provisions upon the brotherhood for 13 years, now has grace doubts about the coundness of its inception and serious reservations about its suitability in present circumstances.
We therefore make an earnest appeal to the Logos editor to make public his full and complete apprehensions about the 1958 agreement, Bro. Carter’s conclusions, the Unity Committee and the brethren who worked so closely with him, and the advantages that he thinks other agreements have to offer. If he will do that and use his influence to restore normal ecclesial arrangements while a review is made, then an atmosphere may be created in which all parties involved can sit round a table and begin a combined course to resolve the difficulties which beset us. We earnestly entreat the brethren for an honest and open approach which will open the way, under God’s guidance, for a graceful and productive spiritual life together.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One