It is now becoming very clear that, not only are our ecclesial autonomy and fellowship principles and traditions under threat from organised ecclesial cartels, but the very basis of our hard-won unity is about to be abandoned by the LOGOS-led group. We did not expect that such an urgent call to defend the Unity Basis of 1958 would come so early in our history, but it appears to us that the groundwork is now being publicly laid by the LOGOS magazine for a major departure from the basis of our fellowship for 13 years.
We are now faced with the beginning of a campaign to call in question, not only the integrity of the brethren with whom Bro. Carter conferred during his Australian visit in 1957, mainly the Unity Committee, but also Bro. Carter’s own ability, during dozens of conferences with all factions involved, independently to judge the true position for himself but simultaneously to promote provisions of an entirely different agreement which was drawn up for the AMERICAN ecclesias in 1952.
We quote LOGOS Editorial, Aug. 1971, P.412,
“. . . we know the heavy strain that such a tour as Bro. Carter undertook in the cause of unity would entail particularly as brethren would be attempting to sway him according to their own point of view. And we are sure that this happened. We are convinced, from factual evidence we have in our possession, that the true state of the Brotherhood in Australia was not revealed to him”.
Note carefully the LOGOS allegations — Bro. Carter was swayed (the inference being that this was due to “heavy strain” thus impairing sound judgment) and Bro. Carter was not fully informed. We await the logical conclusion from LOGOS — these things being so, the Unity Basis of 1958 in which Bro. Carter’s visit played a key role, is unsound!
This, we utterly and categorically deny and strongly denounce the allegations upon which it is based. If LOGOS folk support these assessments of Bro. Carter by their Editor, then they undoubtedly cannot have any confidence in the 1958 Unity Basis at all — let them honestly and frankly say so openly so that the brethren who stand in bewilderment at present may know where things stand.
The whole sorry spectacle now begins to take shape. “THE BELIEVER” has drawn attention to the support for Bro. P. O. Barnard’s doctrinal teaching on the Atonement that the LOGOS editor gave in 1946 and also to the fact that Bro. P. O. Barnard is the unnamed writer in the Unity Book pp. 59-82.
A simple reference to the Unity Book shows that Bro. Carter is the spokesman opposing Bro. P. O. Barnard’s erroneous views. It only took three months for the deprecating statements about Bro. Carter to appear in LOGOS, the eroding of our Basis to gain momentum and the proposal of another more suitable for LOGOS purposes to be suggested. The reasons become even more clear when we see how the strictures of fellowship would be used (LOGOS p.414) and recourse to the American basis has been made to strengthen the campaign on fellowship by ecclesial pressure groups.
Having paid lip service to the Unity Basis for many years, the reservations about its patron and beginnings are now made; having demanded its distorted enforcement upon brethren and ecclesias bringing distress and chaos, disparaging remarks are now made about its founder in preparation for deserting it in favour of provisions of the Jersey City agreement. Does the LOGOS editor think the Unity Committee was unaware of this agreement? Does he think it was ignored or forgotten? For the information of our readers we content ourselves by recording it was considered not suitable.
Look carefully at the LOGOS criticisms of Unity. If Bro. Carter was not informed of every single dissenting brother or remark, then in a legal sense it is true he was not FULLY informed. For example, he did not meet Bro. H. P. Mansfield — although he specifically asked to do so.
We would agree that each interview by Bro. Carter would change his appreciation of the Australian situation but we deny that he would finally come to anything but a fair and accurate overall assessment of the Australian ecclesial position.
We realise the LOGOS editorial stops short of saying otherwise and we note this also —the fact that a few dissenting brethren have been provoked into denying the personal acceptance of the basis from the beginning, in no way detracts from the wide, conscientious, sound and effectual restoration of fellowship for the vast majority of brethren in Australia with the Central Fellowship in England and the rest of the world.
If the LOGOS editor now wishes to make reservations about restoration of that joyous international occasion and to cast doubts on the efforts of the Central brother who made a such a supreme effect on our behalf, then we ask to state his intentions and declare the basis he would now approve.
To illustrate the unquestioned accuracy of our assertions about ecclesial pressure groups in the May/June Believer, the concerted attack upon ecclesial autonomy, the attempted establishment of centralised dictatorial control over ecclesias, and to help you to recognise the source of this pressure by recurring names, we publish these disturbing FACTS for your information.
- Group A — Ecclesias who have withdrawn from Petrie Terrace Ecclesia, Brisbane.
- Group B — Ecclesias who have withdrawn from Caloundra Ecclesia, Brisbane.
- Group C — Ecclesias who have withdrawn from Shaftesbury Road Ecclesia, Sydney.
- Group D — Ecclesias who have resigned from the Central Standng Committee.
- Group E — Ecclesias who, in 1969, resigned from the Sunday School Union to join the LOGOS-sponsored Sunday School Association.
It is to be noted that some ecclesias have not finally revoked fellowship permanently in Groups A, B and C and have used terms such as “suspended fellowship”. It is difficult to summarise each ecclesia’s exact attitude but in each case fellowship has been seriously impaired or terminated. The situation changes weekly; for official information contact the ecclesias concerned.
What are the Issues?
There are at least three: Beliefs on the Atonement, principles of fellowship, and Holy Spirit gifts. On the first issue, not only have the LOGOS supporters an extreme legalistic interpretation summarised in expressions as “physical defilement” (as if the mind and conscience were left untouched) and “sin-riddled flesh of Jesus” which many folk find objectionable, not only this but their own reservations about the origin of the basis inside which they have demanded brethren believe these extremes without reservation, are now coming out in the open.
We have pointed out (July/Aug. p.28) that the “without reservation” of the Unity Basis applies to the Scriptures — a fundamental to which every Christadelphian from pioneer days has been rightly called upon to subscribe — and not to the B.A.S.F. as the only acceptable and accurate definition of the Truth. It appears to us that, having realised that the limit of strictures has been reached under the B.A.S.F., reservations of their own are now being produced by the LOGOS organisation in preparation for abandoning a basis, used hitherto to its utmost, but now found inadequate to bind the brotherhood to extreme views with which they would like to burden the Body.
Bro. Twine, not a member of any Brisbane ecclesia, was examined by the Petrie Terrace Ecclesia as a visitor and was declared to be acceptable for fellowship which they are entitled to do under provisions of “The Ecclesial Guide”, Section 42,
“An ecclesia has no right to judge except for itself . . . let each abide by its own decision without interference with each other.”
Furthermore, Petrie Terrace Ecclesia was disfellowshipped when negotiations were still being conducted by the C.S.C. and lately have made good progress.
So fellowship is another issue which was the subject of an impassioned address “Fellowship in the Divine Family” at Wilston Ecc. Brisbane 10/7/71, by Bro. John Martin in which he claimed (quote): “It’s time to stand up and speak for God” and “This is the Christadelphian position from its inception”.
From Titus 3:10: “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject”, he asserts that the word “reject” means DRIVE OUT and it seems to us that this characterizes the attitude of the LOGOS group to brethren with whom they don’t agree.
This cannot be construed as the Christadelphian position from the beginning. By taking the R off the English word Reject, one could say a fair meaning is DRIVE OUT; but the New Testament is written in Greek and in no circumstances in the N.T. can “paraiteomai” be given a fair meaning of DRIVE OUT. Young’s Concordance gives “ask off, deprecate” and it is otherwise translated as “avoid 1, entreat 1, make excuse 1, refuse 5, be excused 1” and indicates verbal disassociation and is an entirely different word to “ekballo” used when Christ drove out the money changers from the temple. We deplore this kind of exaggerated exposition which, by arousing brethren to a high emotional pitch, thrusts upon them extreme interpretations.
The C.S.C. is making good progress with those who will listen, in teaching sympathetically true doctrines and attitudes while being firm at the same time. Not only is the LOGOS attitude to DRIVE OUT, but to disfellowship others who will not do likewise.
The third issue on Holy Spirit gifts centres round the Shaftesbury Rd. Ecclesia on a subject upon which the B.A.S.F. is silent, this being one of the reasons why the ecclesia does not consider holding these beliefs sufficiently fundamental to withdraw from the brother who holds them.
They have officially advised that these beliefs are not held by the ecclesia and do not allow them to be taught or promulgated from the platform, faithfully abiding by the requirements of the B.A.S.F. (see (b) p.15) and in spite of this, have been disfellowshipped. Who then is abiding by the B.A.S.F.? Not allowing promulgation of this matter, Shaftesbury Rd. are dealing with an internal problem not within the scope of the B.A.S.F.
This has highlighted a further respect in which the B.A.S.F. has now been found inadequate by the LOGOS group. Riverwood Ecclesia has added an additional clause to the doctrines to be rejected referring to Spirit gifts in an effort to restrict further the provisions of the B.A.S.F. and we shudder to think of the chaos which would result from adding to the Unity Basis as individual ecclesias see fit. It now becomes even clearer why the B.A.S.F. and the Unity Basis are considered inadequate in some quarters.
In recent years a Victorian ecclesia had a similar problem when one of its prominent members professed to have received the spirit gift of tongue-speaking. They did not disfellowship him and no other ecclesia interfered. As time progressed distinct doctrinal issues became involved and when there was finally a breach in fellowship relations, it was on these grounds — that is, matters involved in the B.A.S.F. — that it occurred. Wise and patient dealings will finally recover the brother or reveal clear cut and definite error, with which the Statement of Faith is already well equipped to deal.
The Real Issue
The ecclesial system is under attack by a pressure group which is endeavouring to force upon the brotherhood what are widely regarded as extreme views. That the fundamental principle of ecclesial autonomy is being challenged, can now be substantiated by confirmed information in our hands, and our protest about ecclesial pressure groups in our first issue can now be seen to be well-founded.
The demand by Wilston, Redcliffe and Coorparoo Ecclesias that all ecclesias in Australia make a statement to them on the B.A.S.F. was initially organised by 15 LOGOS-orientated ecclesias, meeting at Enfield on the 24th April, 1971. It was planned, according to the minutes of the meeting, that the circular should originate in the Brisbane area, but the brotherhood was not granted the information that it was planned by and backed by a group of ecclesias meeting at Enfield. We have entered a period of planned action against individual ecclesias and the brotherhood at large by a group of ecclesias, acting in concert, big enough to cause major distress by dictatorially applying final judgments on other brethren’s salvation and fellowship. It is the Lord’s prerogative to make final judgment and for us to order our affairs humbly and in love under His hand.
The majority of ecclesias are genuinely attempting to solve their own problems sympathetically and Scripturally, within the framework of a Unity Basis they honour and respect as well as the brethren who laboured so hard to produce it; and they do so without interfering with the affairs of others.
We urge all brethren to consider critically all advice and exposition, comparing it with the full Scriptural position so that our community may behave itself in a way that will be given the approval of God and be seen of men to be above reproach.
Fellowship with the Maker and Brethren