The Christadelphian Advocate Publishing Committee has published a booklet written by Brother K. G. McPhee entitled “Responsibility, an in-depth study of scriptural teaching covering: Mankind’s responsibility to God, Responsibility to the judgment seat of Christ, and the effects of the division of the Christadelphian body because of a differing view of this subject.”
This book should be read by everyone who is active and interested in the reunion efforts now underway because it gives us a true and complete understanding of the responsibility question as viewed by the Unamended Fellowship.
The book opens with some thought provoking questions. “In this consideration of responsibility we are, of course, concerned with man’s responsibility to God. Who is responsible to God? Is every member of mankind responsible to God, or are just a few selected men and women responsible to him?”
“There is a principle that man’s responsibility to God increases as his knowledge of God’s will and requirements increases.” At this point we would all certainly be in full agreement. A quote from Thomas Williams is then reproduced. “We judge from what has been written on the subject (the Responsibility Question) that some broadly deny that knowledge brings responsibility, a position that seems to us to be extreme. It is certainly a reasonable principle to lay down that a knowledge of God’s laws creates responsibility and that a breach of His laws is never allowed to go unpunished if not pardoned.” Again we would be agreeing with Thomas Williams up to this point.
In chapter II Bro. McPhee goes on to say, “Now we must explore whether there are others than those who have made a covenant with God, who will be raised from the dead and judged by Christ; and if so, who will these be? For more than a hundred years there have been two schools of Thought within Christadelphian ranks on this question. Bro. John Thomas believed that those who had heard and known the gospel message but rejected it would be raised and judged . . . Brother Robert Roberts held the same belief in this matter and defended it in several publications and in The Christadelphian magazine.” Brother Thomas Williams, the editor of The Christadelphian Advocate, believed as already cited, that a knowledge of God’s laws creates responsibility but did not agree that Scripture teaches that enlightenment alone would necessarily bring such enlightened to what he called a higher court, i.e., the judgment seat of Christ.”
“Brother Thomas Williams recognizes that judgment upon those outside the covenant may be visited upon them by “the powers that be” or by divine interposition at the return of Christ upon the then living. In both modes of judgment no resurrection from the dead is involved. He also recognizes that those outside the covenant may be judged by God’s arbitrary, incidental and exceptional action involving a resurrection & punishment.”
Bro. McPhee then quotes the amendment to our statement of faith and follows it by this comment. “Having more stringently defined “the responsible,” the requirement by those making the amendment was that this be agreed to, as a statement of fundamental scriptural truth. Those who were not prepared to endorse it would be refused fellowship. The full implementation of this change appears to have taken about four years, 1898 to 1902, after which time there were two sections of the Christadelphian brotherhood, known as the unamended and the amended. The resulting division continues to this day.
Bro. McPhee concludes this chapter of his book by saying, “The issue is whether or not those who have known and understood the revealed word of God as encompassed in the gospel message, and have refused or declined to obey God’s revealed will, are to be raised to life and appear at the judgment seat of Christ. Will the enlightened rejector be raised and judged before Christ’s judgment seat ?”
In the next few chapters of his book, Bro. McPhee analyzes the scriptures that we use to support our belief that light is the grounds of responsibility. In summarizing his comments on John 12 he says, “In any case, a careful consideration of John 12 reveals that this scripture does not provide unequivocal ground for belief in the amended position on resurrectional responsibility.” He also says “When a careful analysis of Romans, chapter one and two, is made, it is quite evident that this scripture cannot legitimately be used to support the hypothesis that the enlightened rejector will be raised from the dead to appear before the judgment seat of Christ.”
The final chapter of his book is entitled, “The Sum of the Matter” and in this chapter he says “All Christadelphians are, characteristically, Bible students whose lives are guided by the commandments and admonitions found in the Bible which all hold to be the inspired word of God.”
“For the most part, individuals in each segment recognized this Christadelphian identity in one another. It is a general practice for us to address our counterparts as brother or sister, even though the unfortunate breach has continued for three generations.”
He goes on to say, “The Unamended teaching is that all those who come into the everlasting covenant by means of sacrifice (Psa. 50.4,5) or through baptism into Christ will certainly be raised and judged at the judgement seat of Christ. Beyond this no clear and certain scriptural teaching concerning the resurrection of others is seen. If God in his wisdom deems it necessary to raise others, he will do so. Any such decision must be left to God.”
“Concerning the cause of resurrection, there is a distinct difference of understanding and teaching. The Amended brotherhood teaches that it is knowledge which causes a man to be raised and judged: . . . The Unamended brotherhood teaches that it is the fulfilling of the terms of the everlasting covenant which brings about the resurrection of those who are in that covenant relationship.”
“There is no doubt that resurrection will occur because God applies his spirit power to accomplish the resurrection of those who are to be raised. The question is — on what principle will God base the resurrection? Will it be because the individual has had a knowledge of God’s will? — or will it be because God himself has decreed that those within the covenant must be raised and judged? This is the crux of the matter.”
Bro. McPhee goes on to say that “when resurrection because of enlightenment is taught, it distorts and weakens the important fundamental teaching that resurrection is by and through our Lord Jesus Christ” . . . The overwhelming thrust of scriptural teaching on resurrection is that a life beyond the grave is possible only when mortal man identifies himself with Christ.”
“There is no question that those in covenant with God will certainly be raised and they are raised according to the terms of a covenant voluntarily undertaken. Will any others be raised? We see no clear and certain teaching in scripture that such will take place. Neither do we see any scripturally defined obstacles to prevent God raising others if he decides to do so. If he, for reasons known only to himself, decides to raise some who are not in covenant, it will be certainly upon a different basis and for a different reason.”
“We view the teaching that it is light which brings resurrectional responsibility as compromising and weakening the correct understanding of scripture on baptism and the everlasting covenant.”
“Brethren John Thomas and Robert Roberts believed that light brought responsibility to the judgment seat of Christ . . . It has yet to be shown that the enlightened rejector will certainly be raised and judged. God has not revealed any such intention. The Unamended brotherhood does not maintain that God cannot or will not raise some who are not in the covenant. It is for God to decide this and this decision should be left to him.”
We respect and admire Bro. K. G. McPhee for his thorough study of the differences that have separated us for so many years. We do not agree with him as we are in agreement with Brethren John Thomas and Robert Roberts who he quoted as believing that “light brought responsibility to the judgment seat of Christ.”
We also understand why he and those who share his belief, cannot accept our amendment believing as they do. Nor could they in good conscience accept a bridging document that declares that light brings responsibility when they say, “We view the teaching that it is light which brings resurrectional responsibility as compromising and weakening the correct understanding of scripture on baptism and the everlasting covenant.”
We should respect the honesty and integrity of these brethren who believe differently and we should not ask them to compromise a fundamental belief that they hold to be true, any more than we would want them to ask us to gloss over our understanding that light is the grounds for resurrectional judgment.
What are we to do? First of all we should love and respect these brethren. We should not count them as our enemies but rather as brethren who are sincere even though we believe that they hold a wrong belief. We should try our best to convince them of what we believe is the truth. To this end, there has been recently published a pamphlet entitled “Resurrectional Responsibility in Romans 2:1-16.” It would be our prayer that this in depth study might help convince our brethren that light is the ground of resurrectional responsibility.
What else can we do? Bro. McPhee in his closing paragraphs gives some good advice. He says, “We should view the division and its perpetuation with sorrow and sadness. We should carefully avoid all recrimination.” . . . “We should pray that God in his mercy may account imperfect brothers and sisters from both segments of the Christadelphian body worthy of an entrance into his kingdom — through Jesus Christ our Lord.” As the twelve tribes of Israel shall surely be reunited by the Lord at his coming, so may all true believers, by the grace of God, be united within The Multitudinous Christ.”
We have heard a great deal about the desirability of having one body. We all desire that but there are those within the Unamended fellowship who have written in their publications that they would refuse to have fellowship with any of the Amended without our first changing our beliefs and being re-baptized into the Unamended Fellowship. This surely means that there will continue to be at least two divisions in the body. As one brother now active in the Focus on Unity effort once said, what we want is “unity and not realignment.”
He was right. We agreed with him then and we agree with it now. We yearn for unity with those who are like minded. To those who believe differently we would hope and pray that through study of the scriptures we might be able to lead them to what we believe is a “more excellent way.” Brother McPhee held out hope for us in this regard in his concluding remarks when he said, “All we can do is demonstrate a willingness to participate in the study of the scriptures which bear on the issue and patiently join in examining the scriptures to see if these things be so.”
In all good conscience we cannot ask our Unamended brethren to accept what they believe is wrong anymore than they should request us to accept what we hold to be unscriptural. Until we can agree, we can only disagree in love. The only other alternative is to become convinced that this difference is not a first principle and then reunion could take place with those who believe differently.
We close by quoting the words of our Bro. McPhee who concluded his book by saying, “We should pray that God in his mercy may account imperfect brothers and sisters from both segments of the Christadelphian body worthy of an entrance into his kingdom — through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One