This article is being written at the express invitation of the Editor before voting on the Referendum is complete, and therefore without any knowledge of the likely outcome. It is clear that whatever comes out of the melting pot some brethren and sisters will be disappointed. During the period running up to the actual voting, it was not evident that there would be an overwhelming majority, one way or the other.
Apart from the information which came from the committee of the CFU, there had been a number of comments published in magazines and by other means which indicated that a significant body of opinion in both the Amended and Unamended communities feared that reunion would be achieved at the cost of surrendering something regarded as vital to their faith.
In assessing why this should be, it is important to observe that the Unamended brotherhood exists only in North America, to the extent that in other parts of the world many brethren and sisters would not know the meaning of “Amended” and “Unamended” since those words are not generally used elsewhere, and the average brother and sister would not know why the two groups exist.
Some Other Reunion Movements Have Been Successful
Some other reunion movements have been successfully completed — Suffolk Street and Central in Britain, Shield fellowship and Central in Australia, and Berean and Central in North America. But every previous effort between the Amended and Unamended groups has been unsuccessful. Why is this ?
In the successful reunions it was always acknowledged that the BASF was a true statement of faith, and reunion then sought to do one of two things:
- (1) the removal of an offending doctrinal barrier. For example, the doctrine of Partial Inspiration of Scripture — the major factor in the separation of the Suffolk Street and Central fellowships —was entirely absent in the Suffolk Street community when reunion was effected.
- (2) the removal of a fear that the Amended fellowship either harbored or would tolerate laxity in doctrine or behavior. The Berean-Central reunion was achieved on these lines when satisfactory assurances had been given.
Neither of these factors can be applied to the present Amended and Unamended problem. There are doctrinal issues which have to be examined. In earlier efforts to secure reunion of the two groups a full examination of the differences did not take place. On this occasion however, the existence of differences has been acknowledged to some extent, and some effort has been made to deal with them. The major difference lies in the Amendment to the Birmingham Statement of Faith in respect of the definition of the grounds of responsibility to resurrectional judgement.
There are other Differences
However there are other differences. One section of the Unamended fellowship openly avows belief in the doctrines of J. J. Andrew which were the initial cause of the problem in the days of Brother Roberts. The wording of the Referendum Proposal would exclude such brethren from a united fellowship, and they themselves have made it plain that they have no interest in a reunion which would not allow them to hold their present doctrines.
Another section of the Unamended group rejects the extremes of their colleagues but holds views which are related to them. This section is, perhaps, best represented by The Christadelphian Advocate magazine and the teachings of Thomas Williams. It also has expressed opposition to the Referendum Proposals.
These two sections (called ‘Andrewite’ and ‘Advocate’, for purposes of identification only) are content to fellowship each other. In other words, the two do not find each other’s beliefs a barrier to fellowship. On the other hand, both of them reject some of the Amended beliefs which the Referendum Proposal appears to them to support. We have therefore the strange position that both sections reject the Referendum Proposals whilst the Proposals themselves would seem to allow the acceptance of one of them, the ‘Advocate.’
There are, however, more than two sections of the Unamended group, since some of their members do not wholly accept all the doctrines of either the Andrewite or Advocate section. This diversity of views within the Unamended group indicates that their attitude to fellowship is different from that of Amended ecclesias where divergent beliefs on major issues are not tolerated in their fellowship.
There has been Confusion
On the Amended side there are some who have rejected the Referendum Proposals because they believe the Proposals jeopardize their own beliefs or are founded on an unacceptable approach to the Statement of Faith.
It is not surprising therefore that in the minds of brethren and sisters on both sides there has been confusion concerning the precise meaning of some parts of the Referendum Proposals. There are several reasons for this which need not detain us here. What then is the way ahead ?
In the absence of an overwhelming majority either for or against, things will not be the same after the Referendum as before. Divergent views of the statistics will be used as indications, by one party or another, of a direction in which the brotherhood should go.
How does the average brother and sister clarify the mind on the issues at stake? No one wants to reject a reunion which is both scripturally sound and righteously executed; nor does anyone wish to accept a reunion which rests on insecure foundations or is achieved by clouding the issues concerned. And, everyone should want to proceed in a Christlike and constructive way.
Although this article is write by invitation, the writer is not resident in North America and is therefore not directly involved in the proceedings of the Referendum. He is, however, deeply committed to the fellowship which he has enjoyed over there for many years, and submits the following observations in the hope that they will be regarded as a useful suggestion as to what may now be needed.
The Clarification is important to both Groups
- It should be made crystal clear whether the Referendum Proposal on Resurrectional Responsibility is designed to be precisely what is stated in the BASF. This is not clear from the present wording. The clarification is important to both groups. If the Referendum Proposal is intended to be the same as the Amendment, the Unamended fellowship needs to know this. If it is intended to be less than the Amendment, the Amended fellowship need to know in what respect it is deficient.
- If the Referendum Proposal is designed to allow for the acceptance of the ‘Advocate’ views g. their particular views on legal condemnation, this should also be made plain, and the extent of the views considered by the CFU committee and the degree of their acceptance should be made stated.
It is evident that brethren and sisters who have received the Referendum Proposal are not able to be certain of the answers to these questions. A straightforward reading of the documents has so far not made the above issues clear, and different answers have been arrived at by different readers. The members of the CFU Committee owe it to everyone to make the position clear beyond all doubt.
There is evidently a body of opinion within the Amended fellowship which refuses to accept more than one statement of faith, and there is a question lying behind this contention which all of us require an answer to. It arises because we are told in the Referendum that the following equation is what the Referendum Proposal is setting out:
BASF + Proposal = BUSF + Proposal Let us, for purposes of discussion, assume this to be so. Does this mean that
- The proposal modifies the BASF and the BUSF, and produces a new position for the proposed united group; or
- The proposal modifies the BASF to make it equal to the BUSF; or
- The proposal modifies the BUSF to make it equal to the BASF?
From the comments which have been made by members of both sides of the present division, the general feeling is that (1) above (the BASF and the BUSF are being modified) is what they are being asked to accept. Some Unamended brethren feel that they are even being asked to assent to (3) (the modifying of the BUSF is being amended to make it equal to the BASF). On the other hand, some Amended brethren feel that they are being asked to sacrifice the BASF for the BUSF.
If indeed it is (1) above that is being aimed at, there are serious consequences to this for the brotherhood world-wide. It would not affect Unamended brethren since they are confined to North America and would continue to be outside the fellowship of the world-wide brotherhood. But what about the Central brethren world-wide? Would they be prepared to extend fellowship to the new united group which, in order to achieve reunion, had knowingly adopted a wider basis of fellowship within North America than is allowed by the BASF? And, what would happen in respect of their world-wide fellowship to those brethren and sisters in North America who remained loyal to the BASF and would have no part in reunion?
No reunion has ever asked the rest of the Central brotherhood to consider such a proposition. The world-wide brotherhood neither has the desire nor the intention to change its basis of fellowship. The BASF is what it believes, teaches and will continue to believe and teach. Recognition of a new group within that fellowship which does not subscribe to the BASF—by stated agreement—would be tantamount to the rest of the brotherhood abandoning its own basis of fellowship. Is this what the CFU is asking the rest of the world to do?
It is Assummed only the Central Fellowship has Amended the Statement of Faith. This is not so.
There is a final question which may or may not be significant. It is generally assumed in discussion that it is only the Central fellowship which has amended the Statement of Faith. From what the writer has seen, this is not so. There are particulars in which the Unamended Statement of Faith differs from the Statement of Faith as first appeared in the Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian Ecclesias as published by Brother Roberts in 1883. Such differences occur, for example, in Clauses V, VIII and XXIX. It would be interesting to learn whether the CFU addressed themselves to these differences, and what their findings were. Since they are seeking to assent to the proposition that the BUSF plus the proposals is equivalent to the BASF plus the proposals, the question is not without point.
Whatever steps are taken after the result of the Referendum is announced, questions of the kind raised in this article need to be addressed and answered by all of us, particularly by the Arranging Brethren of North America ecclesias, because the answers will have significance within North America and for the brotherhood worldwide.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One