The Historical “Amended” Position on Resurrectional Responsibility

In the U.S.A. and Canada, Christadel­phians have been burdened with a large-scale division, lasting now almost 100 years, involving the “Resurrectional Responsibility” issue and other related matters. It has been the hope and the earnest prayer of many brethren on both “sides,” especially during the last 20 years or so, that a means be found—in conformity with the will of God—to heal this sad wound in the One Body.

“Half–Truths”

It is perhaps inevitable that “half-truths” and “misinformation” will be the outcome of a long-standing separation between two groups. Those who were involved at the time of the actual split—on both sides—will have given way in some degree, as time passed, to the natural tendency to paint inaccurate pictures of their antagonists. Some matters are overlooked, and then again assumptions are made about the other side which are not entirely fair. And since personal interaction between the groups is decreased, there is little opportunity to correct these lapses. So, over three or four generations, the actual position of each side becomes distorted in the minds of the other.

This has undoubtedly happened in the Amended-Unamended division. A review of some of its history will reveal several of these inaccuracies that have been perpetuated (one would hope, without malicious intent), and thereby provide the most factual basis for a new initiative for unity.

Robert Roberts and the Amendment

It is generally assumed that Bro. Robert Roberts brought about the division by initiating the amendment to Clause 25 of the Birmingham Ecclesial Statement of Faith, which amplified the term “responsible” to mean (this was added in brackets): namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it.”

The facts are not quite as simple as this. The Birmingham Ecclesia passed the amendment on January 6, 1898.1while R.R., was residing in Australia. It did not necessarily represent his desired wording, and it may even be that he was not in favor of its passage. This is evident from his later comments in 1898. (He died in San Francisco, September 23 of the same year, on his way back to England.)

The June issue of The Christadephian has a note from R.R., in which he states that it was never his intention to confuse the responsibility matter with “the question of the degree of knowledge needful to create said responsibility.” He refers to several groups of brethren who were “prepared to admit the light of knowledge as the ground of responsibility, but were not prepared to cast off some others

who, recognizing the principle, were in doubt how far it might extend to unbelievers in a dark age like our own.” “(This) reservation,” he continues, “is a reasonable one, and needless distress is being caused by the insistence of a ruthless rule of excision. There is great danger in this course. While trying to pull up an incipient tare or two (if they are such) they are leveling whole rows of genuine wheat.”2

In the same issue, in an article entitled “True Principles and Uncertain Details,” R.R. states the “general principle” of responsibility:

“That men are responsible to the resurrection of condemnation who refuse subjection to the will of God when their circumstances are such as to leave them no excuse for such refusal.”

This is followed by what R.R. calls the “uncertain detail,” which reads in part:

“But when, in our age, are men in such circumstances? Who can tell but God alone ? Some think it is enough if a man have a Bible. Some think that is not enough unless the Bible is explained to him (as in a lecture or book). Some think that is not enough unless the man have capacity to understand the explanation. Some think even that is not enough unless the hand of God is openly shown in certification of the divinity of the Bible, as in the apostolic age, when ‘the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word with signs following.’ ‘What are we to do? Are we to insist upon a precise shade of opinion on a point which no judicious man can be absolutely clear about? All we can be sure about is that when men are without excuse’ knowing the judgment of God (Rom. 1:20, 32; 2:1); when they have ‘no cloak for their sin’ like the men who saw the miracles of Christ, and yet both ‘saw and hated both him and his Father’ (John 15:22,­24), that they will come forth at the resurrection to receive punishment according to the righteous judgment of God. When men admit this, they admit enough for purposes of fellowship as regards this particular point. To insist on more than this is to go too far, and to inflict needless distress and cause unnecessary division.”3

In the August issue, R.R. suggests a possible resolution:

“There are subtle shades in the question which call for careful discrimination. The men who admit that light is the ground of responsibility, but who are uncertain whether (yet do not deny that) the amount of light upon earth in an age so unlike the apostolic age as ours, is sufficient to subject rejectors to resurrection­al condemnation, are not men to be branded by withdrawal as though they denied the truth. The resolutions (some of them) that are being adopted would have the effect of excluding such and inflicting a great wrong. There is no particular need for such resolutions, in view of the withdrawal published by the promulgators of the new doctrine from all who cannot receive it. If there are to be resolutions, let them be such as, while professing scriptural doctrine, will do no injustice to enlightened and obedient servants of God, whose hesitations on this subject are not without reason. Such a resolution as the following would meet the case:

“That we reject the doctrine recently introduced to the effect that men must be baptized before they can come under the condemnation of the Gospel at the resurrection. We believe that the ground of condemnation is — not a partial submission in baptism, but a refusal to submit to the claims of the Gospel at all, where there is sufficiency of discernment as to the Divine character of those claims.. Of this sufficiency of discernment, God alone can be judge. We cannot invite the fellowship of those who advocate the new doctrine, but we cannot refuse the fellowship of those who recognize that knowledge is the ground of responsibility, though they may not be clear as to how the principle will work out in an age of darkness like our own.”4

Backtracking one year, to 1897, we find the following comment from R.R.:

“A man would reject the truth who would teach that there is no resurrection for the unbeliever or the rejector under any circumstances, whatever privileges of knowledge he may have. This is what is done by those who have come aggressively forward with the new doctrine; as to whom, there can be no difficulty in taking the attitude that the Kilmarnock brethren favor. But the Glasgow brethren and others are not in this position. They agree with brother Young, of Chester, that the ground of responsibility is privilege; they are uncertain whether the privilege of our deserted dark age is great enough to furnish the requisite ground for responsibility where the truth is rejected. We think there ought to be no hesitation in recognizing responsibility where conviction exists, because such a state of mind brings the subjects of it into the same position as those who saw the (miraculous) works; they ‘see’ in another way, and the moral principle involved is the same. Still, where the general principle is recognized, that ‘God will not be mocked’, there ought not to be any obstacle to fellowship in the nebulous state of the question as to its practical applications.”5

The “new doctrine” mentioned above was the one taught by Bro. J. J. Andrew, to the effect that God would not raise any enlightened rejectors. This extremist position is not the opinion of most of the Unamended brethren. J.J.A. took the extreme step of withdrawing from the main body — which explains why, in 1897 and 1898, R.R. was very reluctant to see see any further resolutions and consequent disfellowships. He evidently felt that the departure of the J.J.A. extremists solved the problem. And he personally was willing to fellowship the “doubters”—i.e., those who recognized the general principle that “light” brings responsibility, but “doubted” to what extent that principle would finally apply as to resur­rectional responsibility in our “dark age.”

The “Glasgow brethren” referred to above expressed their views (which were acceptable to R.R.!) in the following:

“In regard to an age such as the present, to the best of our belief and judgment, the Scriptures do not with absolute clearness teach the resurrection of a class other than the faithful and unfaithful servants of Christ. At the same time, we are far from denying the possibility, should the Deity so intend. We know of no obstacle, legal or otherwise, to prevent the raising to judgment of any evil doer, but . . . we cannot find sufficient ground to justify us in taking a positive attitude one way or the other.”6

Perhaps R.R. ‘s reluctance to disfellow­ship those who were uncertain stemmed from his own expressions of uncertainty in earlier years:

“Rejectors of the Word, who do not come under the law of Christ by belief and obedience, may be reserved till the close of the thousand years. It does not seem reasonable that those who put away the counsel of God from themselves should be passed over without judgment, and yet, since they do not become constituents of the household of faith, their resurrection at the time when account is taken of that household would seem inappropriate. May they not be dealt with at the end?”7

In considering all the above quotations, it appears that the essence of necessary teaching on this subject (at least insofar as R.R. was concerned) is this:

  1. That “light” brings responsibility to God in a general sense.
  2. It is God’s prerogative alone to determine, in every case, whether the degree of light is sufficient for resurrection and judgment.
  3. No one should expect to avoid resurrection judgment by refusing to be baptized.

The B.A.S.F. and Other Resolutions

It must be stressed that the Amendment to the B.A.S.F. was never intended to be the only possible form of expression of the truth on this issue. The Birmingham Ecclesia in 1898 was only one ecclesia, though the largest; it had no authority to dictate wording to all other ecclesias. In fact, many different resolutions were pass­ed by other ecclesias—some more explicit, some less so. The ones that stood the test of time, and were sufficiently clear to maintain fellowship with the main body, generally incorporated the three points listed above — but not necessarily in the same wording.

This point is crucial, and must be understood, because some “Amended” brethren mistakenly believe that any form of wording other than the exact wording of the Birmingham Amendment is a departure from the truth. This is simply not so, and a reading of the ecclesial history in the magazines for the years 1897 to, say, 1907 will bear this out.

One example will suffice:

The “Yorkshire” Statement

In 1902, several ecclesias in Yorkshire (northern England) adopted the following resolution concerning resurrectional responsibility:

“That this ecclesia, while refusing to dogmatise as to who will, or will not, be raised for judgment, affirms the right and justice of Deity in raising whom He will for judgment and punishment, whether baptized, or unbaptized, and will not admit to fellowship those who deny this principle.”

Bro. C.C. Walker, then editor of The Christadelphian, did not feel, however, that this resolution was sufficiently precise. He felt it was not sufficient alone to state that God had the right to raise and judge whomsoever He pleased, since even J.J.A. admitted that God had the right, while at the same time vigorously denying that He would ever exercise that right. He felt there must be some acknowledgment of “light” as the basis of responsibility.8

After personal discussion with representatives from the Yorkshire ecclesias, a second, more precise resolution was adopted by several ecclesias as a substitute for the first. This second resolution was perfectly acceptable to C.C.W., and it secured the position of those ecclesias amongst the “Temperance Hall” (later Central) fellowship:

  1. That the mind of God is the standard of what is right or wrong.
  2. That all who know God’s mind are responsible to the extent of their knowledge.
  3. That those who do not comply with God’s known requirements, will be punished by Him.
  4. That the absence of baptism is no barrier to their resurrection to judgment and punishment.
  5. That those of a contrary mind are not admitted to fellowship.”9

Conclusion

Immediately after the original controversy, numerous resolutions were in use on resurrectional responsibility. The “Yorkshire” statement — just as one example — could be considered sufficient for fellowship by the Birmingham Ecclesia, and it is very similar to several suggested bases for reunion of the present time. Is there any reason why we—who are so many years and so many thousand miles removed from the original trouble — should attempt to be more precise and more dogmatic than this?

Brothers Roberts and Walker were not nearly so concerned with an exact form of wording as they were concerned that the dangerous extreme (that Christ is unable to judge any unbaptized person) should be recognized and repudiated.

Much more could be presented on these points, but perhaps this will be sufficient to show the historical position of the “Temperance Hall” fellowship and Robert Roberts and The Christadelphian on this matter.

  1. The Christadelphian, 35, p. 79 (Feb. 1898).
  2. Ibid, June cover note. Emphasis mine, in this and following quotations. Notice that R.R. perceived some in his own fellowship as being “ruthless” in going too far in their demands upon others!
  3. Ibid, p. 185.
  4. Ibid, Aug., 357. Obviously R.R. would not have suggested another resolution if he were perfectly satisfied with the Birmingham Amendment, or if he felt there could be no other possible expression of the essential principle.
  5. The Christadelphian, 34 (May, 1897), p. 206.
  6. Ibid, March, p. 120.
  7. Christendom Astray, 1869 edition, p. 112. This has been deleted from some twentieth-century editions.
  8. The Christaldelphian, 39 (Jan. 1902), pp. 40-42.
  9. Ibid, Feb., pp. 86, 87, 89.