Letters to the Editor

Youth Conference

Dear Bro. Don,

Where are all our young people? How many young Christadelphians, over the age of 16, baptized or not, are thre in Southern Ontario and Michigan?

According to the list of those registered for this year’s Manitoulin Youth Conference there are exactly 24 such young people; that’s less than two per ecclesia!

If this is not alarming and distressing to us all, it should be. The Youth Conference is a concept designed by young people for young people. It provides an opportunity for spiritual growth and development amongst the group that will become our future ecclesia. Why then this lack of response? This remains a mystery for those involved in the organization of the conference.

Many have said that they work in the summer and can’t get the time off. If they planned to have the last two weeks of summer off, one could be spent at Youth Conference, and the other getting ready for school. The thing is, if we wanted to go we could find a way!

Perhaps the workbook (designed to prepare us to be able to participate at conference) is too much work for our young people. Firstly, we can never spend too much time studying God’ sword. Secondly, the workbook represents about 12 hours of work a month for the next five months, or three hours per week. Is our commitment to the Truth so weak that we can’ t find three hours a week to study the scriptures?

Who is to blame for the almost total neglect of Youth Conference?

The young people themselves must shoulder most of the blame. As young people, we must put God first in our lives and seek out all opportunities to grow in His sight. If we do, He has promised to provide for us the necessities of life.

To the 24 young people who are registered, please spread the word about conference, stir up some more interest in your own area — you are the ones who know what a great experience Youth Conference can be. To those not yet registered, do it soon while there’s still time to get properly prepared.

Are the parents and older brethren and sisters exempt from blame for this tragedy? By no means! Our young people need to be guided and encouraged as much as possible. If you don’t know anything about Youth Conference — then find out what it’s all about. If you don’t know if your children are registered — then find out. Find out if your CYC has included a study of Genesis 1-4 this year in preparation for conference.

If we care about the future of our community, then we will all take more interest in Youth Conference and find out how we can get involved.

Your brother in Christ,
Chris Sales, Shelburne, ONT

Having helped out at two of the three youth conferences and planning to go again this year, we can add our personal observation that it is an excellent opportunity for in-depth Bible study and for enjoyable fellowship in the Truth. We were very impressed with the spiritual growth that occurred among the young people as they took a careful look at a narrow section of scripture. The Bible is like a globe in that going deep at any one point leads one to the very heart of the divine message. Continued surface study does not provide this same benefit.

Furthermore, listening to someone else’s address or reading someone else’s material is helpful but cannot compare to the benefits derived from one’s own personal study. The young people are missing an excellent opportunity for spiritual growth if they miss these youth conferences without good reason.

While those organizing the activity may be discouraged, we would urge them to carry on the work if they feel it is worthwhile. If only 24 attend, then take heart from the bene­fit they experience and do not be overly concerned at the smaller group. In fact, sometimes more real good comes out of a small group than can be achieved when large numbers are present.

The dominant reason for the low registration may well be spiritual apathy. Our society is so oriented to trivial pleasures that even the saints are easily distracted into useless pursuits. There are probably other factors involved as well. Some might like to attend but find the camping environment too uncomfortable for a study week. It is easy to say we are soft and should put up with anything for the sake of the Word. But not everyone is the same and we need to consider what is essential and what is optional. There is nothing particularly virtuous about deliberately being uncomfortable. Another factor is that some young brethren have been stimulated to greater ecclesial involvement by the youth conference and now do not have the time for the workbook study. They are doing Bible study but it is in preparation for other obligations they have undertaken. Another factor is that not everyone who would be inclined to come may be interested in spending the necessary time on the particular topic selected.

One of the good aspects of past conferences is that everyone was there because they wanted to be; not be­cause they felt it an obligation. Let’s try and maintain that spirit. Lord willing, we will have a spiritually vigorous, enjoyable time this year with however many attend.

Disfellowship, an act of love

Dear Bro. Don,

I wish to thank you for your responsible editorship of the Tidings and especially your timely remarks. I feel you have brought a strong and valuable direction to the brotherhood in America at a time of great difficulty especially in light of the marriage/divorce and reunion issues.

My comments are directed, however, to the article in the February, 1990 issue titled “An Act of Love” by Bro. Jim Dillingham. I hope his article will become recommended reading of arranging brethren before an action of withdrawal is taken. You mentioned at one of our Bible schools that your ecclesia decided “as a group” on cases of withdrawal rather than just the arranging board members? Perhaps you could explain more fully.

I was very much grieved (still am) although I’m not a relation to the sister who submitted an apology and an acknowledgement of her sin to my ecclesia but was withdrawn from because 1) it was the “first they had heard of her sin,” 2)she had not been attending for a year (because of her shame and pregnant condition) and 3) because they questioned her “sincerity” as was declared at the ecclesial business meeting six months later. These responses, I believe, are not in keeping with scriptural injunction or with the recommended procedures in the ” ‘Ecclesial Guide” by Bro. Robert Roberts. I feel your comments on pg. 52 (Feb. ’90) are appropriate here: “Disfellowship is a very serious matter. If we formally (or informally) separate ourselves from someone who really is a servant of Christ (i.e. one who has acknowledged sin and repented) we jeopardize our own salvation. Separated from the other person, it is very unlikely we will even know when they are spiritually or physically hungry, thirsty, naked, or sick, let alone be in a position to minister to their needs.”

This has been the case — the sister didn’t qualify for welfare from the state, no assistance from the ecclesia was extended, nor was encouragement as she has no family in the Truth. I listened to her sobs and helped where I could and even wrote to the arranging board. My letter was ignored (no reply to me) and only one arranging brother discussed it with me.

She has submitted another request for re-in-statement, but it has been five months and she hasn’t attended regularly so this “little lamb” is bleating and injured outside the sheepfold and the shepherds have “closed” the door.

Your comment is very moving -­”If we thereby deliberately refuse to help one who is Christ’s, we are refusing to help Christ.” (Matt. 25 :41- 46).

Couldn’t some kind of arranging board manual be written, with scriptural passages regarding certain problems, articles like the one mentioned included so that responsible leadership will be taken. Then arranging board members could read it, pray about it and come to a better decision.

Yours sincerely in Christ,
Name withheld by request

P.S. As a spiritual mother to this sister, I counseled her to approach the ecclesia before they knew of the situation since the fact of her sin came to my attention first.

There is some material already extant that arranging brethren would do well to consider. In addition to the “Ecclesial Guide” (which we suspect not all arranging brethren have read), the Christadelphian office has published a pamphlet “Taking Heed to All the Flock” and Bro. Harry Tennant has given seminars on ec­clesial elder ship, tapes of which are, no doubt, available.

Our own comments at a Bible school probably were more along the line that we recommend arranging boards involve non-board members in seeking to recover brethren and sisters before disfellowshiping any­one. In most cases, the process of disfellowship should be of sufficient length that the ecclesia has an opportunity to alter the board’s direction at a business meeting. In many eccle­sias, it would be unworkable and perhaps unwise to have the ecclesia decide as a group on such issues.

Not being privy to all the details, we cannot comment on the specific case. However, a few general observations may be useful.

Repentance is more than just acknowledging our sin and saying we are sorry we did it. True repentance brings forth fruit worthy of repentance. The difficult decision for arranging brethren is in judging whether such fruits of a change of heart are really evident.

In Christ, we are all one family. While it is a great blessing to have members of our natural family in the Truth, we need to keep on exhorting ourselves to treat all the ecclesial members as family. The fact a person does not have natural family in the Truth should not inhibit their access to loving encouragement.

We have an individual responsibility to others in Christ that cannot be passed off on the arranging brethren. We were pleased to note your personal involvement. In many cases, people criticize others for not doing things yet fail to get involved themselves.

The most disturbing comment in your letter is that the brethren were unaware of the sister’s situation for a year. Every ecclesia should have some mechanism to ensure this does not happen. One large ecclesia recognized the problem and established a “mini-flock” procedure. Each arranging brother was assigned 12 ecclesial members for whom they were particularly responsible. If any of their 12 missed one memorial service, it was the brother’s responsibility to, in a loving, caring manner, determine the reason. In small ecclesias, an informal procedure may work fine but even in these, attendance should be taken and somebody should be aware of the reason for absentees.

Premarital guide

Dear Bro. Don:

Greetings in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The section on Family Life in the Lord is helpful and I believe is serving a useful purpose in the brotherhood. You mentioned in one of your magazines that a guide for premarital instruction is being worked on. I think that is certainly needed in the brotherhood and look forward to hearing of its completion.

Your brother in Christ,
Theo Readman, Pickardville, ALB

Your comment is representative of many we have received and will hopefully encourage those working on the material for premarital instruction. In the meantime, we welcome articles on this matter for inclusion in the family life section.

Exhibiting a right spirit

Dear Don:

“To debate the complex in defense of the Truth while disobeying the simple is confusion.”

It was good to see the loving spirit of Christ manifested in the recent exchange between Bro. Tom Graham and yourself in the editorial pages regarding the marriage/ divorce articles. As a community dedicated to the truth, we should encourage open discussion.

We may have great difficulty and controversy in understanding and applying all the scriptural teaching regarding marriage and divorce, but the loving spirit of Christ is simple to understand and beyond controversy. The doctrine of love requires comparatively little in the way of study, and is seldom enhanced by eloquence. Anything done in His name should be done in His spirit, or left to others. (And this applies to me as well.)

Love in Christ,
Ken Sommerville, Northridge, CA

The exchange between Bro. Graham and ourselves was perhaps a good example of what frequently happens in ecclesial life. Differences between brethren are magnified by our inability to properly express our thoughts particularly when trying to express the full scope of divine thinking. We have noted very few occasions when brethren united in the one truth, faced with the same facts have not eventually reached agreement on appropriate action. The process may take much patient listening to what the other person is really saying. It may also require some confidence in the other brother’s sincerity. That usually is justified as most of us are sincerely trying to follow our Lord although we many times stumble in the process.

Some topics to consider

Dear Bro. Don:

I think the February, 1990 issue of the Tidings just about covered the subject of “remarriage after divorce — the Christadelphian position pro and con.” It would be beneficial to all concerned to move on to some other problem which is besetting our nation. Here is a sample:

What is the Christadelphian view about co-habiting without marriage so common these days? (When I was young, it was a “no-no” but it would be wise to publish the truth about God’s view on the current situation.)

What about deviate sex? The Bible has a long list of commands about abstaining therefrom. In view of the “gay” rights and current “gay” ministers in some churches, an article explaining why Christadelphi­ans don’t (or shouldn’t) indulge would be appropriate.

What is the current Christadel­phian view about members taking part in outer-space flights? Or is there any view on that subject?

Is the current computerization of the stock market gambling? Should Christadelphians get involved with junk bonds and leveraged buy-outs? If not, why not?

How about crack cocaine? When I was young, many years ago (I’m past 83), there were discussions about Christadelphians smoking tobacco. How about taking the popular drugs?

What is the Christadelphian view on the right of choice as to abor­tions?

I enjoy the letters by you and Ellen giving advice to young marrieds. Also Bro. Lloyd’s articles are a must. Keep on keeping on. Remember — it was about 2000 years from 4004 B.C.E. (date of Adam and Eve in the garden) to the death of Peleg (in whose time the world was divided) around the time of the migration of Terah’ s family to Haran. It was another 2,000 years to the birth of Jesus. And in another 10 years we will come to 2000 C.E. (current era) which will be from 2007 to 2004 years after the birth of Jesus. Let us all diligently labor to be found doing our Heavenly Father’s will when Jesus returns.

Your sister in Christ,
Margaret Cooper Knorr, Largo, FL

As you will note, we have heeded your advice and included an article on the “gay” issue this month. Other items on your list will be considered in future issues, Lord willing.

We would be very interested in receiving input from those who have specialized knowledge on the economic and drug issues you have raised. For example, “junk” bonds is a catchy name given to a great range of bonds bearing relatively high interest rates reflecting a greater risk of default. They do not strike us as gambling any more than putting savings in many other forms of investment. But maybe if we knew more about them, our opinion would be different. In like manner, the drug problem really goes much further than the youngsters experimenting with crack, heroin or LSD. Many people are pill-poppers, over-reliant on medication to get through life. Perhaps some of the doctors among us could help in applying Biblical principles to this matter.

The divorce and remarriage issue will keep coming up. We do not plan to repeat such an extensive presentation of the pros and cons as was done in the February issue. We plan, however, to print letters on the subject (we have several now that we are waiting the space to include) and we will continue emphasizing the divine desire for one man, one woman, for life. As Bro. Lloyd points out this month, our humanity demands that we keep repeating right points.

About divorce

Dear Bro. Don:

I see you have received many letters concerning the marriage, divorce and remarriage problem. I fully agree with your first editorial on the problem — that there is a lack of information of details of circum­stances that we desire in dealing with our brothers and sisters whose lives have become entangled in marriage difficulties.

Any way we go there is an “exception” of some kind for some thing. The “exceptive clause” is not in italics in the KJV. Some, looking at the word “fornication,” have applied the “exception” to sex before marriage; but that is a lesser sin and more pardonable than the same identical sin after marriage which is a major crime that adulterates a marriage and destroys the marriage vow. To place the relief coming from the “exception” on the lesser sin rather than the major crime is surely not the application intended by divine wisdom.

I have nothing in my personal life to prejudice my views on the subject.

All students agree that there is one right way to go and I have often thought that maybe the dearth of information on details is a divinely intended test to see which way we would go — the right way, or lean against the law as far as possible. Of course, many are entangled in the problems of marriage against their will.

We should have patience with arranging brethren who have to make decisions on the complicated problem of divorce and remarriage. Arranging brethren are often young and not too wise, and I have also discovered that age has no monopoly on wisdom, or even common sense. Your brother in Christ, Aude Plew, Bloomington, IN

Thank you for your thoughts based on so many years of ecclesial experience. You have clearly picked up the thrust of our initial comments on the matter of divorce and remarriage. We have been criticized for not taking a more definitive position. The right course is clear — once married, make it work and stay married. We continue to include material urging this course and offering suggestions on how to make marriages work.

The problems and uncertainties enter when sin takes over and wrecks a marriage. Then what? Then we have to exercise wisdom, prayer, mercy, firmness and character in the specific instance, considering the details and ramifications of each case individually. Certainly we would like a rule book of definitive answers. As Bro. Plew notes, the very absence of such specifics tries our faith and, in many circumstances, reveals the quality of our discipleship.

Christmas

All of the letters published below are opposed to the position taken regarding Christmas in the “Tidings” of December, 1989. A greater number of favorable responses were received. Many were included in notes accompanying subscription renewals. Those that were in stand-alone letters are not reproduced here that we might give the maximum exposure to a different point of view.

Why do it?

To the Tidings,

About Christmas, I am frankly mystified.

Why would a celebration that is of pagan origin at the worst and Catholic tradition at best ever seduce a Christadelphian to fool with it?

Why would the special “called ­out-ones,” want to dabble in that quagmire of mythology, paganism and misplaced religion?

Especially puzzling is why God’s elect would want to bring the pagan symbols into their very homes, their refuge from the world.

Love in Christ,
Annette Haltom, Pinckney, MI

To avoid repetition, all of our comments appear following the last letter.

Does not sound Christadelphian

Dear Bro. Don,

This is the first time I have ever written a letter to any publication of any kind and we pray you will print this in the magazine. This concerns the article on “Family Life in the Lord” with the question of “What Should We Do About Christmas?” This deeply concerns our small Chris­tadelphian group of nine in isolation in Tennessee and some might think the “Tidings” magazine endorses this pagan holiday. This is not a controversial subject, as it is either right or wrong. We believe that proof can be found that Christmas came from the Roman Catholics and they got it from the pagans. And where did the pagans get it? — they got it from Nimrod, grandson of Ham, son of Noah, the real founder of the Babylonish system that has gripped the world ever since.

In great grandpa’s letter, he states that we were at liberty to do as we please about it– “within reason.” I John 2:21 states: “I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.” Nowhere does the Bible teach the celebrating of Jesus Christ’s birthday. We are commanded to remember his death in the partaking of the bread and wine. Also I John 2:15,16 says “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life , is not of the Father, but is of the world.”

Great grandpa will be at judgment just like we will and Jesus Christ will be the judge as to whether Christmas, Easter or Good Friday was the honoring of some pagan deity or not. Do we really want to wish our brothers and sisters a “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year” and “all that goes with it?” (The drinking, partying, the dope scene, the stealing, with envying and greed, etc.)

Dad says we are not looking for more problems than necessary and the extreme view of Christmas (I suppose he meant the not celebrating of it) usually comes from the younger rather than the older brothers and sisters. It seems that some older Christadelphians don’t choose to take a stand on the issue, forcing the younger brothers, who have children to raise in this “anything goes” world, to take a stand on these pagan holidays.

We came out of the world churches and this article seems to have been written, not by a Christadelphian brother, but by a modern-day world church member. We know what happens when the light goes out of an ecclesia — it’s just another church!

In closing, we appeal to every earnest brother and sister no longer to “halt between two opinions.” (I Kgs. 18:21) Let us give our undivided loyalty to Yahweh and none at all to Nimrod, ancient or modern. The judgment seat looms very large on the horizon and we, who in the words of Bro. Roberts, “add error to weakness, and sin to corruptibility,” do not need to be saddled with this additional burden.

With brotherly love,
Vernon R. White, Adamsville, TN

Christmas part of the apostasy Dear Bro. Don,

The letter from Grandpa and his feelings about the observance of Christmas seems to overlook the connections with the present- day apostacy while endeavoring to minimize the link with paganism by emphasizing that paganism is dead. If paganism is dead, why then the popularity of the beliefs in the devil, demons, immortality of the soul, heaven going, etc. which come to us via Persia, Babylon and Greece? 

More important, though, than whether or not paganism is dead, is the positive link that Christmas has with the Roman Catholic system and with Babylon the Great. Even Grandpa, you write, recognized the link which made him feel a little uncomfortable. I believe that it should make every disciple uncomfortable because Christmas (the mass of Christ) is very much a part of the Catholic church and her daughters, and of Babylon the Great of whom we are admonished to come out of lest we take part in her sins (Rev. 18:2,4). The gross materialism, partying, drinking and excess of food has its ties with Babylon the Great, as well as being inconsistent with discipleship.

You suggest that some are soured by being deprived of fun times. There is no reason to be deprived of fun times just because one cannot in good conscience, celebrate or participate in any of the trappings of the Christmass. The suggestion that children are deprived of fun times because they do not participate in Christmas appears only to be an excuse for participating.

Yes, there is a time to laugh as well as weep, and a time for many other things, but because of the close association of Christmas with the idolatrous, materialistic worship of Babylon the Great, I submit that there is not a time for disciples to celebrate Christmas, nor is there a time to “wish you a Merry Christmas:” however , I do wish you and yours and the whole household of faith God’s blessing in the New Year, and may we see with it the coming of our Lord. With brotherly affection and love through God’s grace, Bob & Shirley Jennings, Brantford, ONT

Dear Bro. Don,

Loving greetings to you in our Lord.

I feel compelled to offer a different chain of thought to “Dear Andy” (December issue) when he asks “what should we do about Christmas?”

As a child, I grew up in a home where the choice had been made to abstain from the celebration of Christmas; but as a young adult, I married into a family who held fast to the tradition of Christmas. Then I had children of my own. All of this caused me each year for many years to rethink Andy’s question regarding this festival.

Grandpa’s letter attempts to answer the question, whether it is right or wrong in the sight of God and the Lord Jesus Christ to hold Xmas — an important question for us all.

Grandpa said that paganism was destroyed. Paganism was not destroyed, it just changed its face under Constantine when mystery Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth introduced Christmas to “Christians” (along with other pagan doctrines). Rev. 17:1-2 tells us she has made all nations drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Grandpa was uncomfortable using the word “Christ-mass,” because it spoke of its origins; and to say that it has no connection with paganism today, just because no one thinks of it, only shows human weakness. God knows its origin and it was not from His commandments.

Eccl. 12:13-14 states, “Fear God and keep His commandments ; for this is the whole duty of man.”

God has made His pronouncements of judgment against Babylon. He also warned His people to come out of her and be not partakers of her sins (Rev. 18:4). Do we really want to be part of this?

As for the tree and other decorations, consider where this tradition comes from (its origin) as you kneel down to put your gifts beneath its boughs, or take them out again; and think of God’s condemnation of idolatry.

As for Easter, and Good Friday, and many other “holy days” (holidays), yes, they are also pagan and should be treated as such. We use these days for fraternal gatherings because they are convenient days off work, so therefore, appropriate to gather for a day of study of God’s word, the same way we use Sundays.

I am not sure why Grandpa thinks it is “aiming too high,” or “striving for the unattainable” to keep oneself separate and unspotted from the world. Our goal should be perfection as our example, our Lord Jesus, was perfect.

Dad’s comment in the article, regarding extreme views of Christmas coming from younger rather than older brothers and sisters, I find to be very misleading and inaccurate. We have many brothers and sisters of all ages who choose to refrain from any involvement with this festival. Many choose to attend a “study day” in­stead. As for extreme views, you either celebrate Christmas or you don’t!

Consider God’ sword in 1 John 2: “No lie is of the truth,” with respect to the Christmas story, and Santa, and the many other traditions of Christmas, before you decide that your children will grow up unharmed by the little pleasures of childhood. Do we really need this association to create “fun times’ ‘for our children?

Are we really at liberty to do as we please about it — within reason?

Is this what our liberty in Christ is really about?

I pray that you will receive this letter with the love in which it is sent that we may all give glory to Yahweh and rejoice together in the hope which He has given to us.

Your sister in Christ Jesus our Lord,

Edith Luff, Manitoulin Island, ONT P .S. I am thankful to God that this opportunity has been given to us through this media. If anyone wishes to research this topic further, the book called “The Two Babylons” by A. Hislop may be helpful.

Could affect eternal life

Dear Bro. Don,

We were saddened by your article “Family Life in the Lord -­What would we do about Christmas?”

We, too, have strong views against observing the “Christmas” holiday.

Whether it is from Pagan Rome or her harlots, it is a celebration world wide of those who “know not God.” In every sense of the word it belongs to the world. It should be absolutely foreign to those who “love the Truth.”

In our area, many of us have raised families to the third generation. They are all in the “truth” and raising their kiddies (who appear very normal) without the observing of Christmas.

At one point, when our children were little, we too felt some tender feelings that maybe we shouldn’t be too heavy on the children regarding Christmas. So we bought them a holiday gift until one of our kiddies confronted us: “If Daddy and you don’t believe in Christmas, why do you let me have a present? I don’t want to believe in Xmas either. I want to be like you and Daddy. m going to be a Christadelphian when I grow up and I want to be in the Kingdom.”

Needless to say, we were shocked at a small child of eight years old expressing it this way. We learned the lesson from this experience. Let absolutely nothing stand in the way of a place in the Kingdom.

We have a telephone answering message in our ecclesia. I am sending you a copy of our current tape. (This tape is a message to interested friends.) The brother who taped the message is not young. He is fairly new in the Truth, though. He comes from a Roman Catholic background and was astonished to find some Christadelphians made light of observing this holiday.

We have also enclosed a booklet, “The Origins of Christ-mass.” The closing of this booklet expresses it very well: “Branded with the mark of the beast” or “Sanctified with the Seal of God.”

It is a very high calling but there is no peace, joy or satisfaction in anything else.

We sincerely pray, brother, you will look closer into this as we per­sonally feel it could affect our eternal salvation.

Your loving brother and sister in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Bob & Barbara Pipe, Dundas, ONT

Paganism is all around us

Dear Bro. Don,

I started reading your “Christmas” letter with some hope that finally someone in the States would publish the truth (a word we’re all very fond of!) about this “joyous” season.

I rapidly progressed from hope to disappointment to frustration. I’m sorry to say that the letter from your grandfather sounds like something written by someone devoid of any knowledge of God’s word. How can he say — and more importantly, how can you publish to thousands of brothers and sisters and young people -­that paganism was destroyed 1600 years ago? Or that Xmas has “nothing to do with paganism?”

There is God’s way and there is paganism. Though the groups around us call themselves Christian, we know that that is just another lie. Their background and tradition stems from the harlot of Babylon, through Rome down to today. Jesus tells us that “he that is not for me is against me, and he that is not against me is for me.” That leaves no middle ground. You are either a true servant of Christ or you are not. You either have the truth, or you do not. God’s way is the truth. To believe in anything other than the truth is paganism. Thus if “paganism was destroyed 1600 years ago,” then all who live today must be God’s true servants. A man in your position of responsibility to God and the ecclesias should have had no trouble figuring this out. Let us hope it was a momentary lapse on your part.

Now that it’s been established that paganism is still alive and well, let’s deal with the absurdity that Xmas has nothing to do with paganism. A more blatant and outright lie I have never seen! In fact, there is not a single tradition about Christmas that is not pagan in origin. True, “very few know of its beginnings,” but the same can be said of the “Mass” held at Catholic churches locally. Their origins are pagan, but they don’t realize it today. Does that mean it’s OK to share in their Mass? Paul told us, “be ye like unto me, even as I am like unto Jesus Christ.” This gives us a very high standard to live up to. Follow in Christ’ s footsteps.

Bro. Bob Lloyd, in a class many years ago, said that the way to stop a bad habit was to ask yourself two things: 1 )Would Jesus Christ do this? and 2) Would I do this in front of- or to – Jesus? In my wildest daydreams I cannot imagine the Son of God rebelling in the Christmas holiday! Can you? Remember –we are doing this in his presence. Thus, both of Bro. Bob’s questions are answered. As for me and my family, we shall worship the LORD; not a day made up to look pretty.

Isn’t that how God speaks to us in His Word? He tells us not to chase after the painted whore who entices us with sweet talk and promises of pleasure. No — stay in the straight and narrow way that leads to life eternal. If we look back through history, it’s hard to find when the majority was right in its understanding of how to be right in God’s eyes. They’d rather follow the painted lady. In this case, the painted lady of Christ­mas.

And how it’s painted. Enticing little children to believe in a “jolly, old elf’ who gives nice gifts –whose origin is in a “saint” supposedly protecting beggars and thieves. Kissing under the mistletoe –such a nice tradition — coming to us from Dru­idic superstition of a divine branch coming to us from heaven and growing on a tree sprung out of the earth. Truly a corruption of the lovely symbolism God has provided in our Lord Jesus Christ! Packing presents under the Christmas tree — today’s version of the original from early Babylon when the evergreen represented Nimrod, deified as the sun-god, cut down by his enemies, but come to life again. Again, a pagan destruction of the truth.

Are we, as God’s adopted chil­dren, to involve ourselves in this? Shame, brother; shame on any of us who continue such fraternization with the whore after coming to a knowledge of God’s truth.

A further note on your comments about extreme views coming from the young. Generally, fairly accurate. But take careful note –Joseph, David, Daniel and Jesus had all made quite an impression on people as very young men (Jesus at 12 years of age!). They were idealists. Their ideal came from God. Yes, “we see some pretty gross sins” and sometimes these sins cauterize our senses — burning away our youthful idealism (extremism?). Does that mean we should indulge our children’s desires. NO! We are told in scripture to not conform to this world — but to be separate. Isn’t it our responsibility to teach our chil­dren that we are “different” and make them understand why? They will not feel deprived of the joy and excitement of the Christmas season, if each individual family and the extended family of the ecclesias , plan “fun” activities for the children based on the Word all year long. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Raising up a child in the ways of Christmas means he will not depart from the ways (all pagan) when he is old enough to make his own way (or God’s) in this world.

Our responsibility is clear. Steer away from the pagan whore who dresses herself in the beauty and joy of Christmas!

With hope in Christ,
Mike Dillingham, Jaffrey, NH

Unite in opposition to Christmas

Dear Bro. Don,

We are writing with regards to your grandfather’s letter on December, 1942.

In his first and second paragraphs, he writes as to whether it is right or wrong in the sight of God and the Lord Jesus Christ to hold Xmas. He then goes on to say, “We are at liberty to do as we please on it.” We are in fact at liberty to do anything we please, but is it right in the sight of God? In Eccl. 1 :13 , we are told, “And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.”

He goes on to say, “Trees speak of the fields and the colored lights speak of sunsets and the tinsel of winter icicles.” Does this not sound familiar? Do we need representations of the real thing to tell us of God’s creation?

To make a comparison with Xmas and using calendar days is no comparison at all. He felt it was not connected with paganism (which, of course, it is). Paganism was destroyed several years ago, but its seed remains today. What about the future of the Papal power? Rev. 18:4: “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Why is it we print books such as “How Sure Are The Foundations?” and give lectures all year round on the “Mother of Harlots” and her “Daughters” and at this time of year become “one” with trinity worshipers? “Go to, let us build us a tower…And the LORD said behold the people is one.” (Gen. 11 :4 ,6)

He further states Xmas is Christ-mass not Jupiter-mass. The word mass in the dictionary states, “In Roman Catholic and some Anglican churches, the eucharistic liturgy, consisting of various prayers and ritual ceremonies and regarded as commemoration or repetition of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross.” So therefore, as long as we are celebrating Christ-mass it is right. Jn. 17:3: “And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

Do we really think God takes any pleasure in the Christmas Season? There are people who only use His name for cursing throughout the year, hold drunken parties, advertise every conceivable thing from flimsy nighties to bizarre videos and movies, all in celebration of Christ’s birth.

We agree it can be difficult for children, but do we give them a “Stone when they ask for bread?” God has given us wisdom to replace this holiday with get-together’s, skating parties, study days, etc. What we found the hardest part when raising our children was the fact that there were so few Christadelphians that saw Christmas as being wrong. We are thankful for the young brothers and sisters today for seeing this holiday as belonging to the world. Josiah, young as he was, tore down the high places. What can hurt our children more than anything else is the lack of love and understanding for those who are striving for the attainable — the kingdom, not the “unattainable” as your grandpa mentions. As a matter of interest, our grandchildren’ s great grandfather instructed us in its error and he was a man who took delight in children and presented the Bible in such an interesting and exciting manner to them.

We are not saying this season is not a difficult time for many, but let us encourage one another along that narrow way which leads to life everlasting and be as Moses, “Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.” Wouldn’t it be a wonderful blessing and strong bond of unity if we could be of one mind — a bastion from this evil and adulterous world, especially at a time when the world is at one?

We have been having study days in Hamilton on December 25 which has been an enormous help to us and we pray that there are others who will be able to have the same next year (if Christ has not returned). We need the support and encouragement of each other more than any other time and may God bless us in this endeavor.

With much love in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Your brother and sister,
Gord & Edith Macfarlan, Ancaster, ONT

Christmas rooted in paganism

Dear Bro. Don,

In reference to the article en­titled, “What should we do about Christmas,” I would like to comment. The notion, by the writer, that modern day Christmas has no connection with paganism is quite untrue. Traditional customs connected with this day have developed as a result of the Roman Church’s celebration of the birth of Christ with the Pagan agricultural and solar observances at midwinter. In the Roman world, Saturnalia was a time of merrymaking and exchange of gifts. Houses were decorated with greenery and lights and gifts were given to children and to the poor. Fire and lights symbolized warmth and lasting life.

The use of evergreen trees, wreaths and garlands were symbols of eternal life among the Egyptians and the Chinese. Tree worship, common among the pagan Europeans, survived after their conversion to Christianity, as well as the Scandinavian custom of decorating house and barn to scare away the “devil.” The Germans set up a Paradise tree in their homes on Dec. 24 and hung wafers on it symbolizing the “host,” the Christian sign of redemption.

Is there any Biblical truth found in any of this? Paganism, in its broadest sense, may have been destroyed on the surface, but its roots live on under the guise of pseudo-Christianity.

Also, the reference to our meeting on the first day of the week, whatever the name of that day happens to be, has a scriptural basis. (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2)

We are a called out, separate people. Of all the days of the year, this is one day in which we can show our neighbors and natural families that we are different from them. This time of the year appeals in a very powerful way to our fleshly nature. The twinkling lights, the music and the glistening stars are attractive forces to our fleshly minds. It is not difficult, then, to imagine the children of Israel indulging in the “petty and harmless” Canaanite religious customs. There is absolutely nothing scriptural about Christmas. Nothing like it, or leading to it or justifying it. But a reasoned look at its roots reveals it to be a mixture of Catholic-pagan abomination, either one of which should keep a child of God from having anything to do with it.

As a final note, Christendom today is not in the Laodicean state. It is separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world (Eph. 2:12). The eccle­sia at Laodicea was what we could consider a Christadelphian ecclesia and we pray that their condemnation does not find its parallel in any of the ecclesias of today.

Your brother in Christ,
Bob Corbeille, Hudson, NH

As noted in our preliminary comments, many responses of a favorable nature were received but there is not sufficient room to print them. Furthermore, we wanted to give space to those who were clearly writing with the brotherhood as a whole in mind.

We heartily concur with the enthusiastic rejection of the apostate system surrounding us. By the way, so did Grandpa. Some might not think so if all they knew of the man was this one letter. Since he lived with us off and on for many years, we knew him well and personally read his letter in the context of his total opposition to wrong church teaching. As a result, we were not sufficiently critical in our reading of how some of his comments could be taken.

To clear the air

The “Tidings” does not endorse keeping this holiday. What we endorse is a careful reading of scripture and a concerned, loving approach to one another (which includes criticism, where appropriate).

Correspondents are right regarding many Christmas traditions and the date of celebration. Pagan rites and apostate compromise lie behind most aspects of the day. In this respect, whether we distinguish between paganism and nominal Christianity is not important, for we reject either system.

There certainly is full agreement over the carnality of much that is associated with Christmas. It is wrong to cultivate covetousness in children, or anyone else, by teaching them to want more and more material things. It is wrong frivolously to spend our­selves into debt that inhibits our ability to serve God. (I Tim. 6:6-9) It is wrong to walk in excess of wine, revelings, banqueting’s and the idolatrous practices of the world. (I Peter 4:3) It is wrong to convey to our neighbors, by decorations, greetings, cards, etc., that we are part of the harlot system. (I Cor. 10:28-29) It is wrong to participate in any aspect of Christmas if by so doing we feel are sinning. (Rom. 14:23) It is wrong to deceive our children about Santa Claus, or anything else. It is wrong to encourage promiscuous kissing. (I Thess. 4:3-5)

The crux of the issue is this: is it wrong for any brother or sister to make December 25 a special time of family joy by exchanging gifts and gathering the family for a meal together and, if parents are wise, teaching children the joy of giving? Is it wrong to send out greetings at that time of year to friends near and far? How much freedom of individual choice do we have in this regard?

New Testament guidance

Them is nothing unscriptural about giving gifts. In fact, God is the giver of every good and perfect gift (James 1:17). There is nothing wrong about gathering in families to feast together; Passover was just such a time (Ex. 13:24-27). But what about doing these things when the world celebrates in a similar manner — is that wrong? Is it unwise? Should we remonstrate with brethren about this issue?

As correspondents have indicated, the antecedents of Christmas are very old. During Roman times, from before the birth of Christ, pagans celebrated Saturnalia Dec. 17-24. “It was the gayest festival of the year. All work and business were suspended…schools were closed… presents were freely exchanged…” On January 1, “the kalends (holiday) of January (was celebrated) when houses were decorated with greenery and lights, and presents were given to children and the poor.” (Ency. Brit. 19, 1084b; 5, 705c) Here is the first century equivalent of Christmas.

When they were pagans, brethren would have celebrated these feasts. Late December would have been a time their children relished as one for gifts and gayety. What were they to do now that they were in Christ? Obviously, they were not to promote covetousness or spend themselves poor or participate in pagan religious services or practice drunkenness and gluttony. All such conduct was for­bidden by principles we have already cited. But could they make late December and January 1 a happy

family time? What limitations were they given in this regard?

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.” (Acts 15:28­,29 from the letter to Gentile converts.) Where are the guiding words about a year-end family holiday? They are not there.

One may say, “the need for total abstention from any of those traditions was so obvious it did not need to be stated. But “fornication” is specifically forbidden and what could be more obvious than that?

The problem would have been acute in Rome and the issue of special days is a dominant point in Rom. 14. Here is the spot to mention holidays. Yet what is said? “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” (Rom. 14:5) True, the primary problem was Jewish holidays but what about pagan holi­days? In the absence of specific restrictions, brethren were at liberty to do as they chose within the constraints of faith and holiness.

A careful reading of scripture should help those who are so upset with Christmas to understand why some brethren have special family activities on December 25th with no conscience of pagan rites and no association with the apostate church.

Wise use of what we know

Brethren in England have questioned us about including “Mother’s Day” on the “Bible Reading Calendar.” We thought it was useful be­cause the day is not the same every year and many do something special for mothers on that day. But they wondered about the connection with mariolotry. Never having heard of such a connection we inquired of the brethren in El Salvador, a heavily Catholic country, what they knew of Mother’s Day. They confirmed that brethren there have nothing at all to do with it because it is a day celebrating Mary as the supposed mother of God. Our sociological backgrounds are different but should we admonish one and all about “keeping” Mother’s Day?

Consider another item. Handel’s Messiah is loved by many Chris­tadelphians. For years we helped organize a group of brethren and sisters to attend a local performance. Then we carefully read the libretto. The conclusion is unmistakable: Handel presents the formation of the ecclesia in Jerusalem as the establishment of the kingdom of God. He believed the church was the kingdom and places the Hallelujah chorus as a celebration of that event.

Brethren and sisters “keep” Mother’s day in total ignorance of any connection with mariolotry. Many rejoice in the Hallelujah chorus with absolutely no idea of Handel’s wrong theology. Should we enlighten them on these matters? We see no point in doing so. Their walk to the kingdom is not served by our making big issues out of such matters. “For the kingdom of God is…righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Rom. 14:17)

Harm in a militant position

What harm is there in being safe and having nothing to do with Christ­mas? Personally, there is none. The problem comes when we impact the lives of others.

Some have relatives in the world who deeply resent our not exchanging gifts or sharing a Christmas dinner. They may well go to excess, which we must reject, and may keep Christmas as a great religious occasion blessing the tree, etc. which we must declare as godless. But harm may be caused if we are so sensitive on the issue that we are filled with ill-will just when they abound with goodwill.

Our zeal to convince other brethren may lead to our exaggerating their “keeping” of Christmas which can be a dangerous imputation of iniquity when there is none. Furthermore, it invites a retort regarding the inconsistencies in our own life such as expensive cars, excessive makeup, elaborate wardrobes, absorption in sports. Such charge and counter charge is destructive to love and fel­lowship.

When we apply principles to specific cases, and then use our conclusions to judge others we are in danger of defining our own code of righteousness. The Jewish Scribes went down that road to disaster.

We emphasize that we respect the conscience of brethren and sisters who refuse to have anything to do with Christmas. Their studies have led them to completely abhor its associations. Their conclusions cause all of us to rethink our standards and way of life and to realize it is all too easy to slip into indifferent and comfortable lifestyles. But our hard and fast approach to a particular position must not translate into a platform from which we launch disdain against our brethren who are not so persuaded. In the end, with respect to Bible principles and matters of conscience, each disciple must formulate his own position and be prepared to give an answer for his actions at the judgment seat of Christ.

As usual, scripture supplies the right balance. “It is good (not to do)…anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.” (Rom. 14:21­22)

The Laodicean state

In Vol. 1 of “Eureka” under the exposition of the “Laodicean State,” Bro. Thomas has the following comment: “…Justin, Origen, Clemens, and others, though corruptors of the faith, were useful in transforming paganism into Laodiceanism; which, though intrinsically contemptible and worthless as a means of salvation, is an improvement upon paganism.” He clearly apply the Laodicean state to apostate Christianity and not to Christadelphia. When making extensive comment on the advent of the Laodicean state in Volume III, he follows the same application.

The alternative approach is to apply the term to Christadelphia, contending that apostate Christendom is outside the scope of such language. While the difference may seem to be academic, it is not.

With Bro. Thomas’ approach, we are encouraged to examine ourselves and our ecclesias for Laodicean-type conditions. Individually and collectively we can become absorbed in materialism, be devoid of real faith and be sliding down a path to inevitable rejection. We can, in other words, be like Laodicea.

With the other approach, one would believe these conditions are already dominant in Christadelpia. One would not say they could arise and could affect part of the community, one would say they already do exist on a widespread basis. One would feel, by definition, many, (some would say most) Christadelphians are “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” With this view, one is constantly trying to expose evidence to justify his conclusions.

This second approach would be more useful if those who believe it would include themselves as being among the miserable and blind and naked. But it always seems to be the other person, or the other ecclesia or the community in another country that proves Christadelphia is in the Laodicean state.

There is no question that today a true believer lives in a very difficult environment for his spiritual health. Scientific advances are wonderful in many ways but they tend to deify man and create the illusion we are less dependent on the supernatural. The disease of declining morals infects the saints. Prosperity blunts our hope for the kingdom. Tolerance weakens our spiritual muscles. But we do not improve the situation by adding to our sins that of judging our brethren and sisters when we don’t know all the facts and cannot read the heart.

Paganism vs. apostate Christianity

Every believer who seeks to explain Revelation 12 and 13 has a problem with terminology. The difficulty is linked to an understanding of history. Great change swept the Roman Empire. Yet many elements of paganism were absorbed into nominal Christianity. The Spirit reflects these crosscurrents by altering the appearance of the symbolic figures to fit the changing course of historical events.

When explaining what happened, some brethren term apostate Christianity “Christendom,” some “pseudo-Christianity,” others “Catholicism” but nobody calls it paganism. Here is an example: “It was in fact the inauguration of Christendom — the commencement of the nominal dominion of Christ on the earth, to be succeeded by his real dominion. That nominal dominion was far from being a system of real submission to Christ; still it was a great improvement upon the empire of polytheism in a variety of ways. There was hereafter at least a recognition (though in a corrupt form) of the God of Israel and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the adoption of precepts having a humanizing effect on society.” (R. Roberts, “Thirteen Lectures on the Apocalypse,” p. 98)

Including all apostate Christian­ity under the term “paganism” may be dramatic but it is not a common or definitive use of words. The Truth is not well served by so stridently as­serting a definition and sharply criti­cizing those who do not accept it.

As correspondents have noted, our Lord is the judge. Let us be generous and circumspect in the terms we apply to those who have accepted the Truth for they are the Lord’s servants. He will take care of judgment; as he says, “I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.”

We greatly appreciate letters to the editor but a few guidelines may be useful.

If you write the editor about the magazine’s contents, we assume we are free to publish your letter. If you do not want your letter published, please tell us that.

We would like to publish all letters, but some are running so long they would take six magazine pages. Please keep the length to a maximum of 1200 words (two magazine pages). Longer items may be submitted as articles.

We will edit for spelling, grammar, comments that may be too specific with respect to an individual or ecclesia and will withhold your name if you desire.

So far as practicable, we will print letters in the order in which they are received. Thank you for your interest. And keep the letters coming.

Divorce

Matthew 19:9

Dear Bro. Don,

Your editorial in the October “Tidings” was read with great interest. Although my own marriage ended many years before my baptism into the Truth, it seems as if the divorce comes back to haunt me in the attitudes and opinions expressed by some in the brotherhood. I find especially puzzling the phrase in Matt. 19:9, “…whoso marrieth her which is put away (divorced) doth commit adul­tery.” The phrase is omitted from the NIV. Can you comment on why and perhaps give the consensus of the Christadelphian community on this phrase in relation to remarriage in the Truth?

Yours in Christ,
Sis. S. Randall, Welland, ONT

The phrase in Matt. 19:9 is found in many manuscripts and omitted in many others. In this case, the NIV and RSV have favored the Textus Sinaiticus while the KJV is translated from the Received (Majority) text, which is supported here by Textus Vaticanus and other texts found in the 19th century. The textual variances are irrelevant in this instance because all manuscripts agree in the reading of Matt. 5:32 and Luke 16:18, which also include the wording in question. As you are keenly aware, these words underscore God’s desire that one man should many one woman for life and His great displeasure with divorce.

Many in the Christadelphian community feel a wholly clean slate is provided by baptism. They feel a person in your position is free to remarry. Others feel you would be free to remarry if your partner committed fornication while yet others believe you are still bound to your first husband and are not at liberty to be married to anyone else. This variation in conviction is why your prior divorce continues to “haunt” you.

Do not feel alone in still being troubled by your past; many who come to the Truth bear lasting scars from their days in the world. Those in such a situation can be bitter at the lingering effects of past days or they can rejoice in the Truth now believed and the wonderful hope of the king­dom now longed for. You may well be bitter at the position of some brethren yet we urge you to be of an understanding spirit. Bitterness eats at the heart and hurts most the one who is bitter.

The unmarried state can be a lonely existence; the natural desire of humankind is to seek for companionship. While you are single, however, may we suggest that you use your freedom to serve and minister to the ecclesias after the example of the apostle Paul. There is much a sister can do to strengthen and enrich ec­clesial life. While you are free from the responsibilities a husband brings, you can find fulfilment in a fuller service to Christ and his body.

In your situation, we would strongly advise that you not throw a burden of conscience on others by asking them to compromise their understanding of the Word. If you should decide to remarry in the Truth, we suggest that, if necessary, you transfer to an ecclesia that would accept you and your husband. Spend your time in their midst quietly working out your salvation and strengthening others as opportunity permits. Ultimately all of us answer to the same Lord who knows our trials and loves those who sacrifice now for the sake of keeping peace and harmony in the ecclesia.

General concurrence

Dear Bro. Don:

Again, greetings in the One Hope. It appears as if I owe you an apology. Your reply to my letter which you published in the December “Tidings” indicates that you understood my remarks to say that I felt your motive for your article on divorce and remarriage in the October “Tidings” was based on “pleasing the flesh.” I believe I know you too well to ever believe that your “motive” for your editorial could be based on pleasing the flesh. When I wrote the letter I had no idea that you would publish it in the magazine (because of its length), but nevertheless, I obviously should have worded that section of my remarks more carefully. The intent of my words was that, due to family involvement, personal involvement and a desire to make things more pleasant this side of the kingdom, I have personally seen individual and ecclesial decisions made that have been based on the feeling of the heart (Jer. 17:9) while scriptural principles have often lacked proper consideration. We seem to all be guilty of this from time to time, and I am sure that you have witnessed the same. Obviously I offended you with my remarks and sincerely hope that you will accept my apology. My intent was to refute your editorial, not to attack you personally.

I do not feel that it would prove to be fruitful in the long run to continue bantering back and forth over each point on which we disagree. I have stated my position as you have stated yours. However, I would appreciate clarification of the next-to-last paragraph of your reply to my letter found on page 328 of the December “Tidings.” I wonder if I am reading your words correctly as I glean from that paragraph that you have come to the same general conclusion that I have, at least in one particular area. You state that God does not sanctify the new union of a divorced and remarried brother and sister. (I would certainly agree with this statement.) You also state that you doubt that true repentance can ever be claimed when the couple are living “happily in their situation that resulted from willful sin.” (Again, I would wholeheartedly agree.) Certainly, then, if there is no repentance, I assume that your conclusion is that generally, (putting aside any exceptions or privileges for the moment), divorced and remarried brethren and sisters ought not to be refellowshipped?

Yours fraternally,
Tom Graham, Reseda, CA

Our direct response would be, “Yes, that is our conclusion.” If there is no repentance, certainly divorced and remarried brethren and sisters, who are not included in any exceptions or privileges, ought not be be refellowshipped. Our point actually went a step further in questioning whether or not true repentance is likely in a case of deliberate, willful sin. Such conduct does not exist in a vacuum but is a reflection of a general spiritual condition. We feel any ecclesia deciding to refel­lowship those who, after baptism, divorce and remarry should very carefully consider the evidence for a true turn-around in the life of the one applying for refellowship. If they do decide upon refellowship, they should recognize that some ecclesias will not accept their decision, will not extend fellowship to the one they have accepted and will probably discourage inter-ecclesial association with the other ecclesia. In a difficult area of ecclesial decision-making, the objecting ecclesias are doing what they think best to stem the encroachment of the world into our midst.

Thank you for your kind comments. Actually, several people thought we were hard and abrupt in our response to your letter. By now, you will have received our own apology in this regard.

Our motive in writing the editorial was to defuse our disputes about technicalities in this area and to focus attention on the need for brethren and sisters to apply divine principles to specific cases. Those qualified to rule with Christ must have the attributes of wisdom, holiness, integrity, mercy, spiritual strength, patience and righteousness. These attributes must be developed now if we are to be given the crown of glory that fadeth not away. Such qualities are not developed by blindly following hard and fast rules. They are developed when we apply the principles of God to specific cases. Thus the general motive of the editorial was to contribute to the preparation of a people who will be ready for their Lord.

Disciple’s reaction

Dear Bro. Don:

Many thanks for the October number. We have just returned from a 14-day Look, Listen and Learn tour with UK brethren and sisters. It was much appreciated by all. We would be happy to organised such a tour for brethren and sisters from your part of the vineyard (God willing).

Divorce and remarriage is a grievous problem. Some principles are difficult to apply in practice. May we ask a question based on the disciple’s reaction in Matt. 19:10? Why were they so aghast if they had not just realized, for the first time, that Messiah was not making an escape route. Does it not show, up to that moment, they thought divorce and remarriage was a possibility but Messiah had shut the door against it? So, said they, if that is the case it is better not to marry!

Love to all,
Les & Edith Johnson, Jerusalem, Israel

According to Alfred Edersheim in Book IV, Chapter 22 of The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, “Jewish Law unquestionably allowed divorce on almost any grounds.” The School of Rabbi Shammai recommended that this law not be set in motion except on the ground of adultery. “This must not be regarded as a fixed legal principle, but rather as an opinion and good counsel for conduct.” Messiah, of course takes the matter beyond advice and pronounces an unambiguous edict.

Consequently, we do not find the disciples’ reaction surprising. For those who felt divorce was a legitimate last resort to a bad marriage, Christ’s edict would come as a shock.

Our situation is not easy. If we find ourselves in a terrible marriage, except for the cause of fornication, our only resources are: 1) to endure it; 2) separate and remain alone; or 3) separate, remarry and thereby commit adultery which could rule us out of the kingdom. The sincere disciple will never intend to do the third. After experiencing married life, the second option is very difficult; better never to be married. That leaves the first option which can be tragic. What if one’s partner knows the commands, knows we are virtually trapped, takes advantage of the situation and makes our life miserable? We can readily understand someone evaluating the prospects and concluding, “better not to marry.”

The exceptive clause

“…whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery…” (Matt. 5:32) “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery…” (Matt. 19:9) Several correspondents have alluded to these verses including some whose letters are too long to print. In considering these verses, several points should be kept in mind.

1. All manuscripts agree in the reading of Matt. 5:32.
2. In Matt. 19:9, the phrase, “except it be for fornication,” is rendered, “saving for the cause of fornication,” in Textus Vatica­nus, the Bezae manuscript and a few partial manuscripts of Matthew’s gospel. All other manuscripts agree on the KJV rendering.
3. In our opinion, it is highly irresponsible to ignore the exception clause in Matt. 19:9 because of manuscript variations. The variant readings occur in manuscripts heavily influenced by the Vatican and do not, in fact, change the essential point of the text.
4. We feel it is equally irresponsible to piece together one’s own translation based on arbitrarily selecting one of several meanings of a Greek word from the back of Strong’s. Such a procedure makes it virtually impossible for God to truly speak to us through His word. What we end up doing is changing His word around to what we think it should say rather than accepting what it does say.
5. The subject of these passages is marriage, not engagement. The principles expressed may include the form of contractual engagement practiced in some elements of Jewish society in Christ’s day. However, to limit their application to that situation is to ignore the issue raised by the Pharisees and addressed by the Master.
6. The word rendered “fornication” (pornia) is used of premarital sex (John 8:41; I Cor. 7:2) and of prostitution (Acts 15:20; I Cor. 6:13,18; I Th. 4:3). It is difficult to find an example where it is clearly used of adultery. It is translated “prostitution” or “whoredom” by Young’s Literal, the Diaglott, the Concordant Literal, etc.
7. Forgiveness must play a big part in the life of a disciple if he expects to be forgiven and if he is to follow the example of God in His dealings with Israel. This surely rules out applying the exceptive clause to a situation where adultery occurs once in a marriage but is repentantly forsaken.
8. A broad interpretation or a casual application of the exceptive clause can erode the determination of some to make their marriage work. However, the right approach to offset this situation is not to resort to contorted Bible exposition in an attempt to deny the clause exists. The right approach is to stress the meaning of fornication, to emphasize the necessity of exercising forgiveness and to work very hard to implement the divine ideal in our own marriage and help others do the same in their marriages.
9. One may choose to be very strict on one’s self but should be cautious when judging the actions of another brother or sister. One may divorce and remarry on account of adultery committed against him and his actions may not result in his disfellowship by his ecclesia. We do well not to judge him or his ecclesia harshly.

Why the dilemma?

Dear Bro. Don,

I was somewhat dismayed, and also very confused, with the logic used in the editorial on “Divorce.”

Being a fairly new brother, I am sure that this writing will be open to correction by more learned brethren than I. However, it is my opinion, when dealing with God’s word, that with diligent study and an open mind and heart all controversies are dealt with very simply.

Adam and Eve were one flesh -­formed by God, joined by God one to another; no separation, no divorce. Christ reminds us of this, “..from the beginning it (meaning divorce) was not so.”

Your reference to 1 Cor. 7:15,27,28 appears to have reversed the roles. Verses 12-15 are very specific. It is not for the brother or sister to depart but the unbeliever. If the unbeliever wishes to remain, then so be it.

In order to divorce, a brother or sister must take civil action in a court of law before a judge. As Christadel­phians, we all know this to be against our teachings. Even allowing some latitude with the “exceptive clause” for divorce, the holy scriptures of truth are quite specific about remarriage (Luke 16:18). Why would Christadelphians wish to accept the ways of this generation and become part of the world? If we are to be saints in the kingdom, surely we must follow the teaching of Christ (John 17:14-17).

Simply put, Bro. Don, brothers and sisters in Christ who are married are married for life. No divorce, period. If they do separate, that is unfortunate, but there can be no remarriage. If these obligations are not acceptable to some Christadel­phians there are numerous other denominations quite willing to accept them into fellowship.

Sincerely, your brother in Christ,
Derek Holmes, Niagara Falls, ONT

What complicates implementing the simplicity of the divine ideal is sin. While God’s statutes are lovely and clear, all of us have gone out of His way and walked, at times, in the way of sin. All of us have a continuing need for forgiveness. In most cases, the matter stays between our­selves and the Lord. However, by their very nature, some sins are open to all and require ecclesial response. We feel the dilemma thus presented is sensitively depicted in the letter from Bro. Jenkinson in the December “Tidings.”

The position of disfellowship for remarriage under any circumstance is clear-cut but is it a right rule to apply to others? We may apply it to ourselves but we question applying a hard and fast rule to other people when the exceptive clause is applicable, or a divorcee from the world is baptized or a believer is divorced by an unbeliever. For example, one may feel the “not under bondage” of I Cor. 7:15 does not allow for remarriage. One may feel that way if the circumstance was theirs but surely we can understand the view that this phrase is meaningless unless remarriage is permitted. If some brother or sister is divorced by their unbelieving spouse and remarries in the Truth, are we so positive our understanding is correct that we will judge now and disfellowship rather than leaving the matter for our Master to judge? Remember “…with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.” (Matt. 7:2)

Disfellowship is a very serious matter. If we formally (or informally) separate ourselves from someone who really is still a servant of Christ, we jeopardize our own salvation. Separated from the other person, it is very unlikely we will even know when they are spiritually or physically hungry, thirsty, naked or sick, let alone be in a position to minister to their needs. If we thereby deliberately refuse to help one who is Christ’s, we are refusing to help Christ (Matt. 25:41-46). This is why brethren are very slow to disfellowship unless they are prayerfully and scrip­turally certain such action is required.

Scriptures are clear

Dear Bro. Don,

Love to you and the family in Jesus our Lord.

I appreciated your article discussing the problem of divorce and remarriage. It is essential that differences of understanding of Bible teaching be openly discussed, as long as it is done in the spirit of the love of Christ. Very often, when we have difficulties of understanding there are three sides to an argument — your side, my side and God’s side. It is His side, of course, which each of us believes we are on, else we would not espouse the teaching we do. In such cases, it behooves us to show compassion and tolerance toward one another when we cannot agree.

I submit that on the subject of divorce and remarriage the scrip­tures are not as unclear as we might be prone to suggest but rather our own bias in thinking makes us unsure of their teaching.

With respect to divorce and remarriage, I submit that the following is a biblical approach: Divorce is wrong (Mk. 10:11; Mal. 2:16). A brother or sister who divorces his (her) spouse commits adultery against that spouse; however, when the sin of sexual immorality is chosen and practiced by one partner, that partner becomes one body with a prostitute (1 Cor. 6:16). If this sexual immorality is persisted in, even though every attempt is made to restore the sinning partner, then there is no adultery committed on the part of the faithful partner if he (she) divorces and then marries in the Lord. Except for un­chastity, whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery (Mt. 5:32; 19:9 RSV), But if unchastity (sexual immorality) is being practiced, then adultery is not committed if the other partner marries. Paul wrote, “Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!”

I Cor. 7:15 fits well with the teaching of Jesus. A brother or sister is not under bondage if the unbeliever departs. The unbeliever is very unlikely to remain celibate, but rather is more likely to engage in a second marriage, thereby committing adultery against his (her) former partner, or the unbeliever may just live in adultery. In any case, if the unbeliever departs, the brother or sister is not bound. To be not bound is to be free. To be free gives freedom to marry in the Lord without being guilty of adultery in God’s sight.

A prime motivator, regardless of the freedom in Christ, should always be the humbling of self and the outreach of forgiveness and restoration wherever possible before divorce and remarriage ever occurs. As a community, we must never place a burden grievous to be borne on the shoulders of anyone when God demonstrates mercy.

(Bro. Bob follows with comments on the Christmas issue which, Lord willing, will be included in next month’s letters to the editor.)

With brotherly affection and love through God’s grace,
Bob & Shirley Jennings,
Brantford, ONT

The foregoing raises the matter of a believer seeking a divorce. That touches on the issue of going to law commented on by Bro. Holmes. It could be reasoned that if God allows divorce for fornication then He must certainly allow the means of attaining such a divorce. However, in practice, it has been noted that in any situation where “fornication” is really being committed, the offending party is usually willing to take the initiative and pursue the legal action necessary to finalize a divorce. The believer is thus relieved of this further matter of conscience.

While forgiveness and restoration are important, we must not undermine the determination of the strong for the sake of those who have willfully sinned. Great wisdom must be exercised in this matter.

Free Subscriptions

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I hope that you will consider me for a free subscription to the Tidings. I am a sister who has a low income and do not see how I can afford a subscription. A family gave me a gift subscription last year. I enjoy the Tidings as an excellent discussion and encouragement magazine for the North American brothers and sisters. If you do not have funds to include me in your subscription list — well, ok! But I surely do hope I may continue to receive the Tidings. Thank you for your kind consideration. You are doing a good job with the magazine — very helpful!

God bless you and remember our Hope.

Love in Christ,
A sister

No problem! Just today we received checks donating the money to cover 35 free subscriptions. The generosity of so many is greatly appreciated. As you can tell from the above, your money is put to good use.

Old magazines available

Dear Bro. Don,

Loving greetings,

We have a quantity of Christadel­phian and Testimony magazines going back to the 1960’s. We would be glad to send these to anyone who would find them useful.

Your brother & sister in Christ,
John & Winnie Hiley
940 Lysander Dr SE
Calgary, ALB
Canada T2C 1R9

Like to communicate

Dear Bro. Don,

Being in isolation here in Frank­enmuth, I always look forward to the Tidings magazine. You have put new life into the communities of Chris­tadelphians scattered in the U.SA. and Canada by your timely articles. Through the Tidings, I have been able to correspond with many brothers and sisters, some of whom I met when I was able to travel.

I no longer drive a car, sold my last one this year because of ailing vision and other disabilities. I will be (God willing) 90 years old in Jan. 1990 and was baptized into the Truth when I was 16 years old.

I expect to be visiting Florida for at least three months January through March. I hope to be staying near Boynton Beach in a Holiday Inn near there. Do you know of the nearest ecclesia in the area?

Sincerely your brother in Christ,
Geoffrey Craig
255 Mayer Rd. #358L
Frankenmuth, MI, 48734

Appropriate information was forwarded regarding the South Florida ecclesia and the fledgling meeting getting started in Orlando.

A lovely letter

To the Tidings staff

Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus who is the resurrection and the life.

Sis. Kay Moores has passed away, so please cancel her subscription. Our dear sister fell asleep in Christ after a very painful illness. Now she rests in peace, awaiting the resurrec­tion call to, “come forth.” Such is a consoling teaching and hope.

But, we must at all times remember the day of reckoning. We will surely need angelic support as we go to the time and place of the judgment.

In the great mercy of our Maker, may we each be found “worthy” in the sight of the unerring Judge, is our earnest prayer.

In the meantime, I am truly thankful to our Father in heaven for all the labors and teachings of our brethren to instruct, warn, and encourage us all as we journey Zionward.

May God’s guidance and blessing rest upon you all laboring in His vineyard. And may His blessing be upon all believers who are endeavoring to obey His laws and who love His precepts and promises and upon all others who may still become apart of the household of faith.

Kindest wishes from a sister in the
“Hope of Israel,”
E.H. Crawford, Victoria, BC

Thank you for your kind words and for being one of the stalwarts of ecclesial life.

The above presents a perspective on the death of a disciple which all brethren who give funeral services would do well to note. Our resurrec­tion is sure, our eternal life is not, for all must stand for judgment. Let us use the occasion of a funeral service to comfort, exhort and admonish the living, not to presume the dead will be in the kingdom.

Abortion

Dear Brother Styles,

I heartily endorse Bro. Bilello’ s commendation of your October editorial on divorce.

However, my real reason for writing concerns the article on abortion in the April, 1989 Tidings. Since the publication of that article, I have been concerned that someone who thoughtlessly had an abortion might now be overly oppressed by the conviction that they have been guilty of murder. Perhaps in their case manslaughter would be a better word than murder? In any case, let them take comfort, as can sinners of all kinds, in the assurance of 1 Cor. 6 :9- 11: “…and such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

Your sister in Christ,
Pixie McLeod, Langlois, OR

After the Millenium

Dear Bro. Don,

Shalom!

This is just a short note in reference to your comments in the October Tidings regarding life in the king­dom and beyond. 

1. 1 Cor 6:3 — Does “angels” refer to mortal people or immortal angels? It hardly seems that this verse can refer to God’s angelic messengers. I rechecked with Strong’ s Concordance and found “judge” in this verse has the connotation of to punish, condemn, damn. It seems more likely that these “angels” could be the likes of Korah, Dathan and Abiram or mortal sinners in the king­dom age. The word “angel” does not always refer to the immortal agents of God.
2. “Why are we given so little information about after the King­dom?” It is not essential that we have this information. But we may be given hints that we should be able to piece together as Dr. Thomas did for a pre-Adamic race on this planet.
3. “Salvation is now made pos­sible through God’s only begotten Son. How can there be another era such as ours without there being another Christ?” This is true for us, but does that limit the all-wise God to only one plan of salvation for the universe? It is possible that “only” begotten Son could refer to this planet and that another “only” begotten Son could be introduced in other parts of the universe. Personally, I prefer to think that God may diversify His plan of salvation.

By no means would I claim these suggestions are the certain right answer; I am merely trying to find the pieces to this jigsaw puzzle.

Keep up the good work; our prayers are with you in it.

With love in Jesus,
Gene Turner, Meriden, CT

We agree with the comment on I Cor. 6:3 and would note that it alludes to an aspect of the kingdom age that will be most interesting. One of the great tasks of Christ and the saints will be to develop mortal human beings into people of godly character. Among other things, this requires giving them positions of responsibility. As mor­tal Levites will serve in the temple of Ezekiel’s prophecy, so throughout the world, mortals will, no doubt, be made responsible for various administrative and instructional functions. They will be “angels” or messengers of the word of God to fellow mortals. Many will respond well but others will degenerate into Korah­like rebellion and will require punishment from the saint ruling that segment of the populace.

Going away to college

Dear Brother Don,

I read with some interest the article entitled “Beware of the College Years” which appeared in the October Tidings. In the article, the author warned the reader concerning the trials and temptations confronting a person during the college years. Among the author’s recommendations was advice that a Christadelphian parent should never allow their child to live away on campus. There is no doubt that living on a college campus can be a difficult situation for any­one, but to rule it out as an option to a college-bound Christadelphian is extreme.

There are problems associated with this stage of life for everyone, whether they are working, going to school, living at home, or living on their own. Each individual and family needs to consider their own situation. Some people may be able to handle the pressures they will meet at school and some may not, but living at home will not necessarily shelter a person, much less teach him to maintain his convictions in this world.

I can only speak from my own experiences living away from home while I attended college. I am positive that I am a more mature brother and better able to contribute to ec­clesial life because of my college experiences. The academic instruction that I received is of little significance when compared to simply learning how to live with people who come from different backgrounds. As Christadelphians, we tend to remain in tight little cliques within our home ecclesias and regions of the continent. As a community, we live in a social fish bowl that can sometimes be intolerant of even other Christadelphians who have different ideas or ways of doing things. We should be concerned about teaching our community to gain a wider appreciation of people and not just a narrow view of acceptable Christadelphian “traditions.” College may provide the opportunity a person needs to grow up and learn a few of these things. Any experience is a resource that we can use to improve our own character and ability to help in the Lord’s work.

I am not saying that living away from home during the college years is the right thing to do, but it is not necessarily wrong, either. Living away at college may be beneficial to some people. It is an opportunity that may be prayerfully and carefully chosen by some Christadelphians.

Your brother,
Andy Bilello, Baltimore, MD

The advice given in the article alluded to was based on observing dozens of different cases. We feel it is rare indeed when there are any benefits to be gained from living on campus that cannot be gained in a much safer environment. If we take advantage of it, the brotherhood itself provides the opportunity to become acquainted with a far wider range of personalities and people from more diverse socio-economic backgrounds than does any other situation. Of course, we have to mix with our own ecclesia, have people from afar at our home and visit around other ecclesias. Furthermore, one has a wider exposure to other people’s ideas when preaching the Truth than in a college dorm. Just ask participants in the Truth Corps.

While Bro. Andy’s case may have been positive for him, it should be noted that he was greatly blessed in his situation by the loving fellowship extended by the Baltimore ecclesia where he was going to school.

Incidentally, the article referred to was in the Family Life in the Lord section of the magazine. We have been asked if those articles allude to real people and real situations. Yes, the incidents are all drawn from real life. “Mom” and “Dad” are the editor and his wife. The family addressed in the letters is a fictious one to facilitate the presentation of the points in an effective manner.

The trinity

Dear Editor,

I have some thoughts on your recent answers to questions in the Christadelphian Tidings. I am a regular reader of Christadelphian magazines, through acquaintance with your members in Kingston (Jamaica), and have studied your doctrines in depth. However, I do not accept your interpretation of the Bible on the question of the deity of Christ.

While the World Council of Churches embraces a wide variety of Christian denominations with rather contradictory beliefs, there is one belief which must be adhered to before the denomination is accepted -­that the Trinity is true. That’s how important the doctrine of the deity (or divinity) of Christ is seen.

The rejection of the deity of Christ is merely one aspect of the increasing liberalism of Christendom’s clergy. As long as Christianity maintains that Jesus was literally God, not just a divine representative of Him, it is difficult to maintain that Christianity is not the exclusive channel to God.

John 1:1 is the primary text: “the word was God.” Theologians who dispute Jesus’ deity say the verse should be translated “the word was divine” – but not God Almighty. Colossians 1:16 and Ephesians 3:9 show that Jesus was the creator of all things.

Some excellent argumentation has been done by the scholar Philip B. Payne in an article in the learned Trinity Journal (“Jesus’ Implicit Claim to Deity in his Parables”).

Payne gathers a mass of texts to show that Jesus draws on Old Testa­ment images of God Almighty and applies them to himself A look at the parables clearly indicates that Jesus was revealing himself as God.

None of the prophets applies symbols for God to himself in the way that Jesus consistently does in his parables. None of the prophets claimed that he was doing what the scriptures specifically say that God will do.

In the Old Testament, God is depicted as the director of the harvest. Yet in the parable of the sower,

Jesus is seen as the director of the harvest. In Joel 3 :13 , God is director of the harvest but Mark 4:29 depicts Jesus in that role.

The Old Testament depicts Jehovah as the rock (II Samuel 22:2-3). Christ in the New Testament is called the rock (I Cor. 10:1-4).

Matthew 25 :31-33 says that when Christ returns, he will separate the sheep from the goats metaphorically. Interestingly, Ezekiel 34 :17 says “As for you, my flock, thus says the Lord GOD; Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats.” Ezekiel 34:10-22 depicts Jehovah searching for his lost sheep to bring them back while Jesus calls himself the good shepherd who hunts for the lost sheep.

The O.T. shows God as the bride­groom and the N .T. shows Jesus as the bridegroom to the church.

Throughout the 0.T., it is God and God alone who has the authority to forgive sins. Yet Jesus claims the power to forgive sins. Notice the surprise of those who inquired “Who is this that forgiveth sins also?” (Luke 7:47-50) They recognized that that was Jehovah’s prerogative.

The image of the vineyard owner is a major figure for God not only in the O.T. but in the parables of the rabbis. Jesus claims it is the parable of the good employer.

Then there is the Isaiah 9:6 text which says Jesus is the Everlasting Father” which should be translated “Father of eternity.” How could he be that if he were not God?

Even in the O.T., the Messiah is given several of the titles of God and his function is described as overlapping that of God.

Titus 2:10 talks of “God our Saviour.” Jesus is the saviour: verse 13 says, awaiting the “appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Isaiah 40:10 says “the Lord GOD will come with strong hand…his reward is with him.” The same words are applied to Christ in Revelation. Christ is called the Alpha and the Omega. So is God Almighty. Isaiah 60:16 says, “I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.” This “mighty One” was Christ.

Sincerely yours,
Ian Boyne, Jamaica

Thank you for your searching letter. We hope the following points will be useful.

1. Do not forget the great simple fact — Jesus Christ died. Almighty God cannot die. (Deut. 33:27; Lk. 20:36; I Tim. 6:16) The same Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who now sits at God’s right hand, having a name over every name, was once dead. (Acts 2:23­-24,36; Rev. 1:18, etc.) This one critical fact shows the Trinity is not true.
2. Jesus Christ was and is a human being. “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God,” “the gift of grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ,” “by man came also the resurrection of the dead,” “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” “as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.” (Acts 2:22; Rom. 5:15; I Cor. 15:21; I Tim.2:5; Heb. 2:14) Another way scripture makes the same point is to say that he came in the flesh; he was the word made flesh. (I John 4:2; John 1:14) The word “flesh” is critical because it speaks of that which wars against the spirit. (Gal. 5:17) The great triumph of Jesus was that he daily crucified the flesh by doing the will of God instead of following the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life which have enslaved every other human being. (Phil. 2:8-9; Heb. 4:15; James 1:13­-15; Rom. 6:17) God Almighty could never be “flesh” because He cannot be tempted. (James 1:13) Now, the Lord Jesus is the first human being to be glorified. (I Cor. 15:23; Heb. 2:8-9)
3. You are right that Jesus Christ is the director of the harvest and separator of sheep and goats. However, he does not have that position because he is Almighty God; he has it because Almighty God has delegated those functions to him. (John 5:22-23, 26­27) Note that one reason the Father assigned these responsibilities is because he is a human being, the “Son of Man.”
4. You are right that virtually every title of Almighty God is applied to Jesus Christ. During the kingdom age, that would only be appropriate for God “hath put all things under his feet…but when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (I Cor. 15:27-28) Surely these verses not only explain the exalted titles of the Messiah but also completely dispel the doctrine of the Trinity.
5. Yes he could forgive sins. But he could do this because God gave him the right to do so, a right he later conferred on the apostles (does this mean the apostles are “Almighty God?”). (Mark 2:10; John 20:23)

The key to understanding the nature and person of Jesus Christ is to accept the simple, straight-forward declarations of Scripture and to recognize the language of God manifestation. The Christadelphians can greatly help you and we urge you to consider again our exposition of these vital matters.

Apathy to signs of the times

Dear Bro. Styles:

Bro. A.E. MacDougall’ s comment in Signs of the Times concerning the “independence movements under way in the Baltic States, the Ukraine and Armenia” deserves comment! The reforms in the Soviet Union certainly are anticipated in scripture. The very lands which Bro. MacDougall mentions are those which Russia provides with a “guard” in the latter days. The “independence movements” pertain to the ancient lands of Gomer and Togarmah of Ezekiel 38. While some may not care for the idea, the thought that Russia will invade Israel prior to the kingdom’s establishment very well may prove true.

The context of Ezekiel also shows that world rulers are concerned with the economic problems this invasion may cause them. Also, Israel is now “dwelling safely,” but Gog’ s invasion is sudden. At the same time, Israel is convulsed with “great shak­ings.” All three of these things are referred to in the Revelation as concurrent with the return of Christ.

Why, in view of such prophecy, are Christadelphians, as a body, not immersed in prophetic studies? I simply cannot understand the lack of interest. I have also enclosed a clipping of great interest, about the Jewish intent to rebuild the temple. Evidence of the temple’s building is shown in Revelation 11, but where is the interest in the topic among Chris­tadelphians?

You will also note from the enclosed that I am author of three books on prophetic matters: “House of Prayer for All Peoples,” “Zion Restored” and “When Earth Burns.” These are published by Dove Tree Press, Box 1317, Levittown, PA 19058 and are designed for non-Christadel­phians. Christadelphians ought to be about the Father’s business for themselves, not resting on their laurels. Some brethren and sisters may find them interesting reading.

Sincerely,
Lois Griffith, Moorestown, NJ

Somebody else mentioned their brethren hesitate to exhort on fulfilling prophecy. In their meeting, there is such a variety of views nobody wants to cause discord by bringing up the topic on a Sunday morning. Thus their ecclesia is not benefiting as it should from the stirring events occurring around us.

Such a situation is totally unnecessary. While the details of coming events may allow for a variety of opinions, the basic framework of last-day prophecy is clear. In recent years, some brethren have greatly hurt the community by needlessly questioning this basic framework. Now the harm done is evident in the form of fear to discuss the great events unfolding before our eyes.

Many letters are to hand on the matters of divorce and remarriage and our handling of Christmas activities. However, the volume of other items was such that we have deferred those considerations to future issues, Lord willing.