“In the absence of any centralized bureaucracy and of clergy or other religious professionals, how have the Christadelphians been able to maintain a sense of cohesion?” asks Charles H. Lippy in The Christadelphians in North America, Mellen Press, 1988, pg. 167. He continues in this vein, “How is commitment sustained and nurtured without clear lines of authority, fixed norms of orthodoxy, or prescribed standards that all accept? Indeed, Christadelphians appear to defy expectation, for students of small religious movements have long argued that there is almost a natural tendency for a group to develop bureaucratic apparatus as it moves into a second generation or seeks to endure once a founder figure has died. Otherwise the group is likely to dwindle and die itself. Christadelphians …have developed none of the trappings of formal organization. Yet they continue to maintain a strong sense of cohesion and an abiding commitment to their vision, despite being geographically diffuse. How have the Christadelphians been able to sustain a common identity?”
Dr. Lippy, a professor of religion at Clemson University, here presents an informed observer’s view of our practice of a lay ministry and autonomous ecclesias within the fundamental framework of our statement of faith.
Individual initiative
In presenting his answer to the question, “how do we do it?” Dr. Lippy notes a network of interecclesial activities that binds us together. He then comments that “most of this network has emerged from the initiative of single individuals or groups of individuals who recognize a particular need…yet because there is no overarching authority to give a stamp of approval to particular projects or programs, no interecclesial activity is likely to be accepted by all. And some have generated and continue to generate much controversy within the Christadelphian families.”
He’s right. Having just returned from a trip that took in Jamaica, West Indies and several areas of England including London, the Southwest, Birmingham and Yorkshire, we were impressed with the very points he has covered.
Everywhere there is a wonderful sense of family. The cohesion is truly remarkable, crossing all barriers of culture, occupation, race and economics.
And everywhere there was great activity in process, all undertaken by personal initiative. New ecclesias were being formed; halls were being built; preaching work was going on in Poland, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Russia; efforts were underway to renew an awareness of the Catholic and Orthodox legs of Daniel’s image and a massive preaching presentation had started using the latest in audio-visual techniques.
As suggested by Dr. Lippy, opposition was heard to the various efforts. No one had an “official” blessing because there is none to be had. Those taking the initiative faced protests that they were wasting money or misdirecting their efforts or emphasizing wrong points or introducing modern techniques.
A frustrating approach
Our spirit of individual initiative and of ecclesial independence can be frustrating. Some of us find crosscurrents and loose ends hard to handle. Temperamentally, we like things neat and orderly, run in a manner that avoids the repetition of mistakes.
When we see one ecclesia repeating an error we have already made, we want them stopped and redirected. Yet we have no “official” way of getting it done. If they are not susceptible to personal persuasion, chances are they will have to learn from their own experience.
Our organization is particularly frustrating if one has successfully run a business. To be successful, any commercial enterprise must work in a cohesive manner toward well-defined objectives. Those who refuse to cooperate are dismissed. Those who start projects on their own and siphon resources away from authorized programs cannot be tolerated or they will wreck the company. Decisions must be made at the top and orders must be followed; a defined hierarchy is critical to success.
No other way
As a community, we’re not trying to be efficient, we’re trying to be scriptural. We practice ecclesial autonomy because of the model we find in the New Testament. There is every precedent for doing things the way we do them.
In Revelation chapters two and three, the Lord Jesus writes seven ecclesias all of which were within a radius of 65 miles. Not once does he intimate that one was accountable for the actions of any other or that it should be involved in the affairs of another.
Paul’s letter to the Galatians was written not just to one ecclesia, but to the several ecclesias in the province of Galatia. On that basis, any of them could consider it justification for admonishing any person or ecclesia in the area. Yet consider what is written about becoming involved in other people’s problems: “If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted…if a man think himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work…for every man shall bear his own burden” (Gal. 6:1-5). Surely, no one would use this epistle as the basis of authoritarian interference by one ecclesia in the affairs of another. Any critical comments were to be made with the greatest of humility, reticence and introspection.
When members of the large Jerusalem Ecclesia sought to interfere in the Antioch Ecclesia, they were admonished by the elders at Jerusalem who directed that a minimum set of guidelines be established for the Gentile believers (Acts 15). If there was ever an ecclesia that could prescribe for others, it was the one at Jerusalem guided by apostles having gifts of the Holy Spirit. Yet their approach is as close to non-interference as one could find.
A different objective
Dr. Lippy puts his finger on the reason for our approach when he says our activities have “emerged from the initiative of single individuals or groups of individuals.” He repeats the point two pages later in saying, “most attempts at proselytizing or proclaiming the Christadelphian vision have emerged from the labors of individuals or groups of individuals…” (pgs. 168,170).
The ecclesia does not exist to be a model of efficiency. It exists that individual believers might be prepared to rule the world to come. That objective is not served by dictating people into a prescribed set of standards or policies defined by others. It is served by individuals and individual ecclesias trying to apply the principles of Christ to the situations they face.
By so doing, they may repeat mistakes that others have made, they may operate inefficiently, they may be forced to patiently deal with crosscurrents of opposition. But if sincere and steadfast, they will develop as servants of Christ and as heirs of the world to come.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One