When is a first principle not a first principle?
The question is not as silly as it sounds. For the plain fact is that there are believers in plenty who are genuinely hard put to discriminate in the field of religious conviction between what is essential belief and what is not. It is important to note: the question is not whether a particular item of belief is true or not, but whether it is a thing of first-rate importance.
For instance, here are two questions in one: At the last supper did the Lord Jesus use wine or grape juice?
The fact readily demonstrable is that the cup contained fermented wine. Yet not a few ecclesias regularly partake of fresh grape juice. However, a second fact is that nowhere does the New Testament require that at a true memorial celebration there shall be one of these and not the other. Today, some see what is (to them) important symbolism here, but there is no Biblical warrant for insisting that one mode is illicit and not to be practiced.
In a wide variety of instances, questions of this quality constantly crop up. Here are a few more examples to illustrate the point:
- Is abortion wrong? (Yes, of course!) And if it is, ought the disciple of the Lord to add his weight to public protests regarding it? (There are pros and cons here. What does the Bible say?)
- Will Ezekiel 38 be fulfilled before or after the coming of the Messiah? (The present writer knows of much clear evidence for the latter conclusion; but he would defend to the death the right of others to disagree — and publicly!)
- And so also with another issue of vastly greater importance!: Was our Lord in the tomb for three full days and nights (72 hours), or from Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning? Whatever one’s personal conviction here, the BASF leans very definitely to the second of these.
- The covenant name of the Lord is often seen both as Jehovah (e.g. Hymns 10,17,38,42,54,58,295) and as Yahweh (Hymns 16,253). Should there be insistence on one or the other? Is there a vital difference of meaning? Does it matter? (For long years the hymn book has used both).
- If an unfaithful wife runs off, taking the children with her, should the husband (in Christ, remember!) seek a divorce in order to ensure custody (and the spiritual education) of his children? And so on…and so on.
But come now to two issues both of which are a century old in Christadelphian history.
- What is (will be) the truth about “immortal emergence?”
- The BASF declares, but not in very explicit terms, the principle that “light” (knowledge of the truth) will ensure that in the last day, whether baptized or not, such an one will be answerable to the great judge of all.
Long years ago, serious controversies raged round these questions, and — as could have been foreseen, even more serious exclusions were bequeathed to succeeding generations — a classic case of “the sins of the fathers.” That last sentence, which may appear to some to be somewhat judgmental, is planted very solidly on a century of shameful history.
The real essence of these by-gone controversies, still enthusiastically kept alive by some, is not: Who or what is right? But rather this: Are these vexed questions of sufficient importance to be insisted on as First Principles of the Faith? This writer believes his own convictions on these matters to be unimpugnable; but he has never been able to understand why this principle should be exalted to the same level of importance as, say, the nature of Christ, the truth about the Devil, the rejection of a pernicious evolution theory. A glance back over the past century makes it easy to assess whether responsibility issues, argued interminably backward and forward, have contributed as much to the wellbeing of the ecclesias as there would have been from a proper emphasis on the first of all Paul’s first principles: “There is one body.” What a lopsided profit-and-loss account!
Harry Whittaker, Lichfield, UK
Editorial comment
Having been intimately involved in discussions related to both of the doctrinal issues referred to by Bro. Harry, we may be able to help him and others see why brethren on this continent regard them as first principles of the faith. Individuals do not just believe incorrectly on the matter of the judgment seat of Christ and who will be there, they openly and persistently teach what we believe to be error on these subjects. If we were to force a reunion between the Amended, CGAF (Salem conference of the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith) and Unamended groups, we would inevitably go through the whole trauma of divisions all over again. The differences are not matters of semantics or personalities. The differences are convictions which individuals in all three groups hold deeply and will ardently propound if they feel contrary views are held in their ecclesias. We know this to be the case from personal conversations with people who firmly believe the faithful will be raised immortal and that only baptized people will stand at the judgment seat of Christ.
The people we were talking to do not dislike us nor we them, quite the reverse; we want to get together! But we realize that to do so at the present time would be unworkable because of sincerely held doctrinal views.
That is not the case with everybody in the Unamended or CGAF groups. Some of them believe the same as we do regarding the Bible passages in question or believe differently but would agree to keep their reservations to themselves. When brethren visiting from other parts of the world talk to such individuals, they think the North American Amended brethren are stubbornly schismatic. Please give us credit for having sincerely examined the issues and for having sorted through the problems of personalities and semantics. If members of the CGAF or Unamended who believe as we do want to join us, we will welcome them with open arms, but we can’t be expected to tolerate in fellowship open teaching of wrong doctrine.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One