Letters to the Editor

Difficult Decisions

Dear Brother Don,

Greetings in the fellowship of our Lord.

Periodically an ecclesia needs to make a decision on a controversial issue. Emotions are aroused. Conflicting positions are presented and promoted.

What scriptural principles are pertinent? What procedure should be followed?

Typically, the issue is reduced to two or more options. After some period of discussion, the matter is put to a vote. The majority position is adopted.

Occasionally, the minority position is adopted. This occurs when the majority submits to pressure from a forceful minority.

Here are two procedures, the former more “civilized” than the latter. But is either one scripturally sound? In both cases, one group imposes its will upon the other, generating negative consequences. Both processes are divisive, producing winners and losers.

Neither procedure accords with such exhortations as: “Complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interest of others” (Phil.2 :2- 4, RSV). “Love does not insist on its own way” (I Cor. 13:5).

The violation of these principles is obvious when the winners are in the minority. To the modern, western mind, it may be less apparent when the winners are in the majority.

In the “Ecclesial Guide,” Bro. Roberts acknowledges that the voting process “is doubtless a concession to the evil principle of democracy” (p.13). Reaching a conclusion by majority is clearly without scriptural warrant. It is a relatively recent invention, the product of a humanistic philosophy, a token of the political assertion of human rights. It is a process absorbed into the ecclesia from the world of man.

What is the alternative? The answer is found in Acts 15.

In Antioch, the issue involved generated “no small dissension and debate” (v.2). In Jerusalem, there was “much debate” (v.7). Clearly, many brethren expressed their views.

How was a decision reached? It did not involve divine revelation, nor the exercise of apostolic authority, nor a majority vote. “Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men. ..and send them…” (v.22). The decision was unanimous! They had arrived at a consensus supported by everyone present.

Here is our precedent. The procedure includes these elements:

• –careful study of the relevant scriptural principles,
• — courteous discussion and debate,
• — close attention to the viewpoint of others,
• — a willingness to learn,
• –prayer, and
• — sufficient time to reach a scripturally sound consensus.

It would be interesting to hear from ecclesias that follow such a process. Sincerely, your brother,

Philip Jones, Calgary, ALBT.

Should We Stay or Move?

Dear Bro. Don,

Thanks for editing and publishing my comments regarding the TV problem. I received many favorable responses and letters, even from some surprising sources.

Now, in regard to the request by Bro. Timothy Drepaul regarding moving from an ecclesia where one is useful to somewhere else because of “financial considerations.” It is possible the Lord has work for a person to do in a new field. Remember when Peter was called to instruct the gentile Cornelius (Acts 10).

During my long life, I have been picked up and set down a number of times in new places and it always develops that there is work of the Lord for me to do in the new location.

It has been my lifetime practice, when faced with a difficult decision, to pray for guidance and ask for a “sign” -­often a “yea” or a “nay” or a “stay” or “go.” Then I open my Bible at random and see which word turns up. If neither a positive or a negative word is seen, I consider the tenor of the text, reconsider my problem, pray and ask again. We are convinced that the Lord always answers prayers. Sometimes the answer is a clear “yea” or “nay.” Sometimes it is “wait a while and see what develops.”

Sometimes things come up so fast there is no time to pray and we must trust God to give us the answer. For example, yesterday morning a complete stranger came across the street to consult me on a terrible and shocking problem. Out of the clear blue sky I had to find words of advice and comfort to help him cope. I trust God guided my tongue. Apparently, what I said helped him and he went away. I accept the thought that God’s hand was guiding both of us.

In all things, we need to ask God to guide us and then allow ourselves to be guided.

Sincerely, your sister in Christ,
Margaret Cooper Knorr

The foregoing letter raises the issue of asking God for specific signs. Additional comments on such a practice would be welcomed, as well as further thoughts on the ways of providence in our lives.

Financial Help for Unemployed Brethren

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings and love in Christ.

The problems we are seeing makes me wonder if it may be wise to have a fund for the many brethren out of work. We had one in 1933 based at Detroit.

There are many out of work and I know that they would never appeal for help…

Most certainly these are the last days and our Lord is at the door.

Yours in Christ,
John Brewis, Fort Erie, ONT

These brief comments accompanied an article submitted by Bro. Brewis. They do, however, reflect a concern that has been growing in our community and which has been brought to our attention on several occasions.

Coincidentally, we were recently reminded of the millions of dollars that are flowing out of the community (millions is not a misprint) when members pass away, leaving their estates to secular organizations. We were recently told that a small community of 1,200 members was able to spend up to $500,000 a year on missionary activities. Virtually all of the funding comes via bequests or income-producing funds set up from legacies.

We are convinced that the resources are available within the community to care for any of our communal or individual financial needs. Suggestions on the good use of what God has given us would be useful.

 Unemployed Brother Seeks Job

Dear Brethren,

Greetings in our common hope.

I am now going on 22 months of unemployment, the worst since entering the workforce in 1967.  Money is getting low and I am now planning a move to another area.

I have been laid off from time to time since 1979 and prospects in construction in this area do not look good. I have been contacting former and potential employers but nothing of substance has turned up.

A summary of my qualcation’s follow. I will send a full resume to any who could help out.

Education: four years of college with courses in engineering, drafting, surveying, civil engineering, building sanitation, etc.

Certifications: Associate engineering technician; journeyman carpenter. Experience: Carpenter and foreman on both residential and commercial construction, including interior finish and remodeling.

In Christ,

John B. Zahner 1260 John Street E-49 Salinas, CA 93905 Phone messages with apartment manager (408)422-0870

Apostasy in the Last Days

Dear Bro. Don,

Loving greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Your editorial in the April “Tidings” was interesting but I think not entirely accurate. You said, “It appears that the present revival of the Truth, in which we are blessed to participate, is one of the longest ever.” You do not state the starting date. I presume you are figuring from the time of either the naming of the community or from the early days of Bro. Thomas. Whatever the starting point, there have been and still are divisions that date from as early as 1866.

If these divisions were not necessary to put down apostasy, then they should not have occurred. If the passages you quoted were only applicable to the days of the early ecclesias, then we are left wide open to our own private interpretation of scripture. This could lead one to ask, “Why try to spread the gospel message outside our own area?” since that command was fulfilled in the first century.

You suggest one of the “bad aspects” of expecting the apostasy in the last days is the potential that an positional straight-jacket” will result. I believe that is a scare tactic and leaves the brotherhood wide open to the development of academic giants who, insensitive to the needs of others, pursue their own “new” ideas. They then try to impose them on the ecclesias.

We are instructed to “exhort one another daily while it is called today.” Therefore the “bright and faithful minds” you suggest may be driven from the community should use their talents to build up the brethren and sisters by way of solid exhortations, Bible classes and lectures…

Yours by grace,
Rick Sales, Georgetown, ONT

The Word in John 1

Dear Bro. Styles,

Regarding the article in the “Tid­ings” of May, 1993 on “In the Beginning was the Word” Bro. Haltom suggests that the third clause of John 1 kai theos en ho logos might be more correctly translated as “and God was the word.”

This is not so. The Nestle/Aland Greek text is correctly quoted and wisely consulted by Bro. Haltom; but to understand the Greek, one has to pay attention to the spelling of words rather than to the order of their occurrence.

If I recall correctly, the spelling of the phrase ho logos in John 1 indicates the nominative case is used which means that ho logos (“the word”) is the subject of the sentence.

This being so, the correct translation of the clause in question is: “and the Word was God.”

Your brother in Christ,
Marcus Moore, Toronto, ONT

An Open Letter to all American Christadelphians

Dear brothers and sisters in the faith once for all delivered to the saints!

In mid-February 1993,1 returned to Jamaica after a period of almost eight months’ residence in your nation’s outwardly beautiful capital. I lived and worked of necessity in a part of the city characterized by, shall we say, “alternative lifestyles” of various sorts, and among the many lobbying groups that impact on the legislative processes of your country. It became very apparent to me that new and serious challenges to our faith are looming in your country. And they are coming from a totally unexpected quarter.

Conscription a dead issue

For about a century, from the Civil War that gave birth to our name, to the 1960’s at the height of the Cold War, the one issue on which you were prepared to defy deliberately the law of the land; because it conflicted with God’s Way was war. Christadelphians, and others, were willing and, in the spirit of Acts 5 :29 ,41 , even happy to accept the consequences of such defiance.

This issue is no longer significant. For all practical purposes, the brotherhood’s stand on conscription is of no interest to our contemporaries, at least not in a democratic state such as yours.

New challenges arising

Not so the new challenges, however. They are of a totally different character. They arise from the deliberate determination of the Devil in your midst (that Devil being the social forces of evil in your country) to use the sacred rallying cry of “human rights” to wrest control of government and the legislative process so as to make evil legal and gag and cripple righteousness, especially as expressed in traditional religious, and specifically scriptural, form. As a recognized religious body, the Christadelphians will not be exempt from the effects of this blasphemous crusade. You should be preparing once again to defy the laws of your country in the cause of the truth.

Consider the following

The following all occurred while It was in Washington.

1. One state (Louisiana) has ruled that while it is perfectly legal for school (and homosexual groups) to distribute condoms to teens and preteens without parental consent, it is unconstitutional — and therefore a felony –for any teacher to recommend chastity, even privately, on the ground that is is a religious value. Other states may follow.
2. A statute signed into law in New Jersey now “compels all recognized churches (that includes the Christadelphians) to accommodate homosexuals in marriage and other sacraments,” defiance of which incurs quite severe penalties. Governor Florio, in a recent interpretation has “expressly refused exemption for any church from this law,” and a legal suit from a fundamentalist church recently failed in an injunction to prevent enforcement. Other states are contemplating similar laws.
3. The State of Hawaii has recently enacted a statute which expressly forbids any church from any form of discrimination, such as removal of the privileges of membership, against members whose “alternative sexual life-style” is discovered. Any church failing to comply can be sued.
4. Several states have enacted, or are in process of enacting, laws to “protect” people, particularly minors, from being exposed to the Christian While the origin of some of these laws is to curb exposure to various exotic cults, the effect is one of throwing out the baby with the bath water. At least one school district (in California, I believe) has now barred the wearing by teacher or pupil of any item which has a specific religious symbolism and, more seriously, has forbidden any teacher or state employee in its jurisdiction to explain or give reasons for his or her personal faith, even privately (on the curious ground that such an act violates the freedom of unbelievers).
5. Perhaps the weirdest of all in this unraveling web of legalized evil, are the laws now being prepared for enactment which will specifically penalize churches which speak out or protest against free abortion, legal rights for criminals , free purchase of firearms and various other social aberrations. The purpose of such laws is to utilize skillfully the sacred concept of freedom so as to maximize the freedom of the wrongdoer while minimizing any religious antipathy.

The state would be an enemy

Brothers and sisters, I have examined some of these laws. They refer in detail to practices, and contain language, that would have startled the founding fathers of your country, and horrified our own pioneers, whose writings are replete with praise for the potential blessings of the American legislative system (as a very temporary affair, of course, pending the arrival of the true Lawgiver). These new laws are truly devilish in concept and intent, and are designed to give free rein to evil.

You may soon find that Romans 13:4, which you have been used to, may soon be transformed into Revelation 2:10, which, unlike many of us, you in your country have never been used to. A church is no longer sacred: nothing is.

Perhaps, if you are to keep the integrity of the Truth in these last days, you will once again have to openly defy the laws of your country and take the consequences. May I suggest that you can no more stand aside from this crisis than did John Thomas when faced with conscription in 1865.

Alan Eyre, Jamaica

Divorced before baptism

Dear Bro. Don,

I refer to recent correspondence concerning divorce and remarriage and, in particular, Bro. Pillion’s comments as printed in the May, 1993 magazine.

It is of interest that the argument appeared to conclude on the basis of what was suitable for him, i.e. what conditions he would want before granting fellowship.

It would seem from this type of language that we subscribe to definitions of fellowship based solely on an individual’ s interactions with his brother or sister and not with God.

It is also sad when any of us, in discussing this difficult issue, couch our language with expressions that speak of “self,” i.e. “what will I allow;” under what conditions do I grant fellowship.” How ironic it is that our community debates these issues on the basis of “self,” when we profess to follow an individual Jesus Christ, who knew nothing of “self.”

Our community would do well to spend greater energies in assisting those brothers and sisters caught in the difficult situation of marriage breakdown rather than in only determining whether we allow these unfortunates to sit next to us on a Sunday morning.

Your brother in Christ,
Colin Russell, Moorestown, N.

Divorced Before Baptism

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in the Hope of Israel.

The following responds to a letter and your response in the January, 1993 “Tidings” concerning divorce before baptism.

In addressing the sister,I would stress that knowledge of the Truth is what makes us accountable, as we all know. The unbeliever does not understand fully about the glory and beauty of the marriage to come. Of course, there are Christadelphians who don’t understand the beauty of marriage either, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t married. All sins are forgiven at baptism. If someone is divorced, he is forgiven of divorcing his spouse…The principle of creation that Christ emphasized was one man, one woman. This is what every believer is accountable for. We must uphold the commandments of Christ.

If the divorce is forgiven, the first marriage nonetheless remains. This does not mean the divorced believer is expected to reunite with his first spouse, but the believer should uphold the principle of “one man, one woman.” We all have to suffer the consequences of our failings even when we come out of the world. Some consequences are more serious than others, but “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

Can we believe that a marriage and divorce (in ignorance) is forgiven by baptism and the subsequent remarriage condoned while divorce and remarriage after baptism is condemned? Is there virtue in the waters that cannot be imparted by prayer?

Scripture teaches ignorance is excusable. Ignorance requires tolerance and longsuffering, but not justification. “And if a soul sin. ..though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Lev. 6:17 and see “Law of Moses” p. 239). Christ condemned the Pharisees for their remarriages even though they were unbelievers and ignorant of the Truth (Mt. 19:2-9).

Now, Bro. Don, we take great exception that there is no commandment but only advice by Paul in I Corinthians 7. If we take that chapter and reduce most of it to “advice” from Paul, then we become the judges of whatever we want to be a commandment or advice in any part of scripture. Paul says “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth” (I Cor. 7:39). This is a clear commandment. Paul doesn’t say the commandment applies to all except those who were divorced in ignorance.

In I Corinthians 7 :27 , the commandment is also very clear. “Art thou bound to a wife? seek not lobe loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.” You can’t get any clearer than that. You may respond that verse 28 says, “if thou marry thou hast not sinned.” Here Paul is speaking to the male virgins of verse 26. In verse 28(b), he speaks to the female virgins, “she hath not sinned.” Verse 27 has to be a parenthetical statement that would exclude those who are married or divorced from seeking a new wife.

If you were to persist and say that it does give the divorced the right to remarry, then we would have to say that, 1) Paul’s statement would not be limited to only those who were divorced in the world, and 2) it would also give those who are bound to a wife the right to remarry.

We cannot put human emotion above the principle. God manifestation, not human salvation, is one of the main doctrines that separates our community from psuedo-Christianity.

Sincerely,

Your brother in Christ,
Bob Pillion, Houston, TX

In a postscript, Bro. Pillion adds the following note, “…If a couple acknowledges that their remarriage was unlawful, and they uphold the teaching of the right principle (recognizing that they have two or more spouses)… then I have no problem with fellowshipping these brethren and letting God be the judge.”

In I Corinthians 7, the apostle is answering specific questions put to him by the brethren (v.1). He openly acknowledges that some areas are not covered by explicit divine instruction. He indicates such matters with statements like “I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment…” In such areas, he gives his personal advice based upon godly principles and the Corinthians’ particular situation — they were about to face severe persecution (“I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress” v.26). In his advice, he recognizes that some flexibility is needed based upon the personality of each individual, (“I speak this as a concession, not as a commandment. For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God…if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry” vs. 6-9 NKJV).

Some of the questions presented touched matters upon which there was explicit divine instruction, “Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord…”

In the January “Tidings,” we did not say that there is no commandment but only advice in this chapter. What we did suggest is that one read the chapter from the standpoint of newly-baptized believers who were single divorcees and felt a strong need to marry. Would they find a clear prohibition against remarrying? They would find Paul’s advice that they should not, but we do not feel they would find any statement proving it was sin to do so.

We have noticed that people’s scriptural understanding on this subject is greatly affected by their own personal situation or that of their children. That could be putting personal feelings over scripture; it could be. It could also be, however, that, because of one’s personal situation, he is reading scripture more accurately than before.

Having read the Bible so accurately that we have come to a knowledge of the Truth, we should be able to do so on other matters as well. For example, Paul addresses “the married” (I Cor. 7:10). From the context, one can tell he is addressing a couple who are both in the ecclesia. He is not addressing a situation where one person is in the Truth and one is not; that is considered in verses 12-16. He is not speaking of a divorcee, for the wife is still living with the husband (v.10). In these circumstances, it is sin to divorce; while not a desirable alternative, it is not sin to separate. That is the reasoned approach we use when teaching first principles; we should do the same on this subject.

Verses 17-24 deal specifically with slavery and circumcision, although the principles could certainly apply to a single divorcee, “As the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk” (v. 17). Again, however, what Paul “ordains” is not, in this case, in the class of a divine command. The slave could choose to take his freedom if it were possible (v.21) and Paul himself had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3).

Verses 25-38 are “concerning Virginians” with the stated introduction that this is Paul’s opinion which everyone may not be able to apply (vs. 25,36). As noted by Bro. Pillion, there is a deflection from the topic of virgins in verse 27. The phrase “art thou loosed from a wife” indicates a person who is not a virgin but has been married. The Greek for “loosed” is luo, which means “to loose, release, set free” (Liddell-Scott Lexicon) and indicates a previous marriage. Some would assert that verse 27 is a parenthetical expression with verse 28 going back to the main theme. To the contrary, it is more likely that verse 28 is part of the parenthetical expression completing the thought. Note that verses 27 and 28 address the second person (“thou”) whereas verses 26 and 29 address the third person (“a man…brethren”). In any case, the condition of being “loosed” is not sufficiently specific to assert that it applies directly to the single divorcee, although one can certainly see the possibility in this regard.

Verses 39-40 pick up an unanswered point from verse 11. If the believing wife departed from her believing husband she was to remain unmarried — for how long? For ever? No! if her husband died, she was free to remarry in the Lord.

In the whole chapter, where is the most direct instruction to the single divorcee? We would suggest verses 8 and 9 cover the point as they speak to “the unmarried and widows.” The “unmarried” here would not be “virgins” for they are addressed later, as we have noted. Again the advice is to remain unmarried; but, because “it is better to marry than to burn,” some leeway is permitted.

In dealing with these matters, we need to remember the compassion of our Heavenly Father. True, He is very angry at any who disdain His commands; yet in some ways, He is more flexible and understanding than we ourselves might be. Thus when we lack clear commands, we should beware of imposing rigid standards on others lest we incorrectly impose burdens impossible to bear.

Dear Bro. Don,

Loving greetings in our One Hope.

After reading comments concerning I Corinthians 7 and the issue of being divorced before baptism, I feel complected to write. It seems this is being used as a test of fellowship which I find disturbing. I believe that interpreting this chapter to mean that a single divorced person is not free to remarry after baptism adds an exception to what Paul wrote.

Some say that the instruction, “As the Lord has called everyone so let him walk” (v.17) is applicable to single, divorced converts and prohibits them changing their marital status. Does this verse then imply that no one is able to change their marital status? I was single when I was baptized. Was I wrong in marrying in the Lord? Was I to remain single? Though Paul advises us of the benefits of serving God while single, verse 28 comforts by stating, “But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned.” If it were the case that one was to remain single, having been baptized in that state, it would seem to encourage young people to find their spouse first, then get bap­tized. This happens far too often as it is. Since we all acknowledge that the person who has never married and is bap­tized is free to marry, this cannot be what Paul is stating.

As the moral decay in this world increases, we find that more and more people to whom we preach have been divorced before hearing the Word. They did it, however, in ignorance; as Paul states of himself: “Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy be­cause I acted in ignorance and unbelief’ (I Tim. 1:13 NIV).

With the idea that single divorcees are to remain that way, if Christ’s return is delayed much longer, we would find ourselves with many single converts who could not marry. Essentially, only people raised in the Sunday School would be permitted to marry.

Furthermore, are we suggesting that the person who never married but who lived with someone or was promiscuous is more forgivable and can start anew? That means he is better off than the person who tried to do what he thought was right and marry but ended up divorced. The one trying to do right ends up unable to start anew after baptism! I cannot see the teaching of God’s mercy in that light…

Granted, baptism doesn’t wipe out the past; what’s done is done. In symbolizing death to the old way of life, however, baptism allows for one to begin a new life…

What is Paul telling us, especially in verses 17 ,20 and 24? I think the key may be in the words, “Don’t let it trouble you” (v. 21 NIV). This is very applicable, then and now. Too often people fret about changing a current position in life — if single, trying to find a spouse, if employed, changing or improving one’s job situation. Paul exhorts us not to worry about changing our position but to retain it and to be content. Taken in context, verses 17 through 21 can certainly be applied to one’s position in life even now. Since verse 21 says one can change jobs (i.e., a slave was allowed to accept freedom if offered), verse 20 cannot be stating he’s not allowed to change his status, just that he’s to be content in his position as he was called.

Consider the lilies of the field (Mt. 6:28-34). We all need to seek first the kingdom of God and all that we need will be added unto us. “Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself”

I know there are differing viewpoints and will be until Christ’s return, but please don’t make it a test of fellowship. Consider God’s mercy which we each want showered upon us, and show a little mercy and compassion toward each other, strengthening each other on the road to the kingdom.

With love in Christ,
Laura Bearden, Leander, 7X

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in the Hope we share.

The following comments relate to the letter from Bro. H.D. Bartholomew in the March “Tidings” where he raises Genesis 2:24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh.” He goes on to say, “hence, the covenant was for men of every age and it was for life.”

This passage can have no meaning other than application to the physical uniting of man and woman. The word “cleave” is especially expressive of sticking or adhering to something and could not be understood any other way (e.g. Psa. 102:5, “My bones cleave to my skin;” Jer. 13:11, “As the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man”). The words describe a relationship where the physical union is an integral part of that relationship; regarding it as a theoretical state makes no sense of the phrase “one flesh.”

If the man and woman separate, the relationship in mind terminates as it depended upon a physical “cleaving – one flesh” condition. Apart from that, you have nothing. This seems to be what Paul has in mind in I Corinthians 7:15 RV: “If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. The brother or sister is not (Gk: ‘ou’ — a full and direct negation independently and absolutely, no conditions real or implied, Bullinger) under bondage (Gk: `douloo’ — enslaved) in such cases: but God has called us to peace.”

Can we say that, upon coming to the Truth, single divorcees are under bondage while the brother or sister whose unbelieving partner leaves them is not under bondage? No, the principle is the same in both cases.

Genesis 2:24 has nothing to do with legal ties; it is talking about a relation­ship which includes a unique physical commitment. Where that is not in place, it is no longer marriage as set out in Genesis. The brother or sister is not under bondage.

Marriage is a figure of Christ and his Bride. To say that it is unbreakable in our mortal existence carries the spiri­tual corollary of “once saved– always saved.” We know that this is not so as we can fall from grace. If we can show the corollary to be wrong, then the first part of the proposition must be wrong as well.

Does this mean that we can just walk away from marriage?

For believers, Jesus makes it clear that marriage must stand every stress and strain except infidelity (Mt. 19:3-9). This is true of the spiritual life in Christ as well as of the natural lives we share. Matthew 19:9 is not an exceptive clause but an integral part of Jesus’ exposition on the marriage state which is commenting on Genesis 2:24 as much as is verse 5.

In II Corinthians 11:2, Paul says, “I have espoused you to one husband that! may present you as a pure virgin to Christ.” In Revelation 14:4, they that come to Zion are still virgins. It is obvious that infidelity would exclude anyone from that number.

The scriptures are emphatic that immorality and adultery will not be tolerated by our Lord and he does not expect the brother or sister to put up with it. By insisting that the marriage bond is unbreakable no matter what, we do not exalt the Biblical concept of marriage, we debase it.

Jim Scott, Dundalk, ONT

Need In Cameroon

Dear Brethren and Sisters,

Loving greetings in the Lord Jesus and in the faith we share.

Since two years ago, the Lord started a great work in us. Our little ecclesia started with the baptism of Bro. Komandu Blasius on March 3, 1990. Through careful teaching of the faith, in January 1991, six other brethren and sisters joined him by putting on the saving name of Christ.

Our vision was not dimmed. We continued the great command of going into all the world and preaching the gospel. Our efforts were once more blessed by our Heavenly Father in January, 1992 with two new baptisms followed in October, 1992 by three others. The 13 of us went on the field to harvest for we saw that the harvest was ripened and ready to be brought in. On 13 February, 1993,  we brought in nine, being our first harvest for this year. We know that the Lord has need of all who are His and He also has need for us to bring the people in so that they may know the Truth and the Truth shall make them free that they might be saved (John 8:32).

We are now 23 brethren and sisters in our ecclesia and we hope, God willing, we shall win more souls, for we are still fighting to do so.

Our country is bilingual. As a matter of fact, some brethren are French speaking and they cannot read a word of English. Much of our literature is in English and they cannot read it. We sometimes try to translate some; but, having no means for printing, our efforts seem useless. We wish that if any brother can help us, by anyway to print them, the action would be most helpful to us.

We have been meeting at Bro. Komandu’ s place since we started. But now his little hall seems too small to fit us. This problem has been referred to the CBM-UK through Bro. Robert Fifield, our liaison brother. We welcomed him at Yaounde a few weeks ago (Feb. 8-19) during his stay in Cameroon. We are now looking forward to renting a hall for our gatherings and Bible study classes. But due to lack of ecclesial funds, it will not be easy. So, your help would be appreciated.

Many of us are not working and daily life is quite a heavy burden.

For the brethren and sisters, Nkankeu Francois, Rec. Bro. Christadelphian Bible Mission, P.O. Box 20099 Yaounde, Cameroon,West Africa, Dollar contributions to CBM-UK clo Ron Hicks, 4909 Newport Ave., Bethesda, MD 20816

“Christendom Astray” Missing Pages

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in the faith we share!

My own copy of “Christendom Astray” (1984 hard cover) has blank pages 434, 435 , 438, 439 , 442-444, 446 and 447. I seem to recall another copy lacking print some years back. I hold Bro. Robert’s “Christendom Astray” in highest regard. I am dismayed at the prospect that the copies handed out may be flawed in this manner.

Jam writing Detroit Christadelphian Book Supply this date requesting that they look into this matter that the flaws may be corrected. I bring this to your attention so the matter will receive the attention it deserves. Missing pages in such a powerful book cannot redound to our credit with such flaws in printing.

Your brother in Christ,
Raymond Snyder, Manitoulin, ONT

Building Fund Appeal

Dear Bro. Don,

Fraternal greetings in our Master’s service.

The Glenlock Ecclesia at Taylor­ville, South Australia is known to many Australian and overseas ecclesias. It began in 1958 with 9 members with the membership increasing to 25 in 1967 when the ecclesial hall was opened.

Closely connected with the history and development of the Glenlock Eccle­sia has been the Glenlock Easter Bible Camp. This annual camp began in 1961 and has been the reason the ecclesia is so widely known. The ecclesia has continued its growth and now has a membership of 71 and more than 40 scholars in the Sunday School.

With the Easter Camp attracting up to 1,500 people each year, and the year-round availability for camping on the peaceful banks of the Murray River, Glenlock has been sorely pressed for some time in not only meeting its own needs for accommodation, but for a steady stream of visitors as well.

We have now reached the point where hall and Sunday School extensions are urgently required.

To meet our immediate and projected needs by way of hall extensions, the Glenlock Ecclesia is appealing for assistance in raising the sum of $70,000. The ecclesia has a commitment of $45,000 to this project from its own members. We trust that the balance of $25 ,000 will come from donations or interest-free loans.

Plans have been finalized and it is hoped that work can commence almost immediately.

We would deeply appreciate your consideration of our appeal by publishing this notice in the magazine.

Fraternal regards,

Rob McLean, Finance Bro. Donations please in US or CDN $ to:
Glenlock Christadelphian Ecclesia
P.O. Box 482, Waikerie , 5330
South Australia, Australia

Christadelphian Song Book

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in our common hope!

Bro. Tim Bering and I would like to publish a book of original Christadel­phian songs and hymns. The music does not have to be original; the author can refer to a familiar tune to which the words can be sung.

If possible, please supply the words on a computer diskette in a format accessible by Word Perfect.

Original music is, of course, fine, as are lyrics to which the author would like someone to put music.

If anyone has a 286 computer available and would like to donate it for this effort, we would greatly appreciate it.

Joanne Rivard
R.R. #2 Dunnville, ONT,
Canada N1A 2W2
or Tim Bering
River Road, R.R. #3
Welland, ONT, Canada L3B 5N6

Should We Stay or Move?

Dear Bro. Don,

Some of us dedicate ourselves to the service of one ecclesia. We do all we can to stay in that ecclesia and serve it as long as we can. But I raise the question, How far must we go in dedicating our­selves to one ecclesia?

We may know our services are of great use in an ecclesia but what if we would be financially advantaged by moving to another area? Times are hard and we all have a problem making ends meet.

Christ tells us to, “Seek first the kingdom of God.” If we do, he promises that “all these things will be added unto you.” The same passage advises us not to worry about tomorrow for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” The meaning is clear; we should take one day at a time, not being concerned too much with the future.

There might be times when we feel we cannot seek first the things of the kingdom. That is not, however, very faithful when we are told in scripture that we will be provided for by our Father in heaven.

In light of the Biblical assurances, should we leave our ecclesias and pursue better job opportunities in other areas or should we stay where we are? God might have put us in an ecclesia because it has needs which we can fill: teaching Sunday School, or gan-playing , pastoral or preaching activities, leading services, etc.

I would appreciate a response to my question: How far should brethren really go in dedicating themselves to an ecclesia? Should we stay in our ecclesias, serving to our fullest capacity or should we take opportunities to earn a better living?

Timothy Drepaul, Queens, NY

Brethren and sisters sometimes move to other ecclesias because their services are better utilized there. That is not the situation addressed by Bro. Timothy. He is asking about the circumstances where financial considerations are the motive for moving.

Acts 15

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in the hope of Israel.

In the December “Tidings,” you wrote of the agreement reached in Acts 15, bringing together Jewish and Gentile believers. I have a few comments on that matter.

Circumcision and the Law of Moses had been introduced by God to confirm the faith of Abraham and to make Abraham’s descendants a holy nation, separate from the nations around them. Could it be that the Pharisee believers (Acts 15:5) were trying to ensure the separation of the believers from those around them? Peter points out that God “put no difference between us (Jews) and them (Gentiles), purifying their hearts by faith” (v.9). The Jewish and Gentile believers needed to be cemented in fellowship together, but, at the same time, separated from the world around them.

James summarizes, “How that God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name” (15:14). What does being a “people for his name” require? When we turn to Exodus 34, where God proclaimed His name to Moses, we see some striking parallels with Acts 15. The New Testament agreement was that “we write unto them, that they abstain from pollution’s of idols (Ex. 34:12-14), and from fornication (Ex. 34:15-17), and from things strangled (Ex. 34:20), and from blood (Ex. 34:25).” The references we have noted show the same four things appearing with the declaration of God’s name.

As the brethren wrote to the Gentiles, so God commanded Israel to observe what He set forth (34:10). Like the Gentile converts, Israel was to be a separate people, abstaining from the pollution’s of idols by destroying the Canaanite altars, breaking the images, cutting down the groves and worshiping no other god (Ex. 34:12-14).

As the Gentiles were to avoid fornication, Israel was to do the same. Association with the inhabitants of the land would cause them to “go a whoring after their gods” (vs.15-17) committing fornication in the pagan rites.

Exodus 34:20 refers to the firstling of an ass being redeemed with a lamb. If not redeemed, then its neck should be broken (strangled).

Exodus 34:25 alludes to the special handling of blood under the Law. It was not to be eaten because the “life of the flesh is in the blood.” Just as Christ, our passover lamb, poured out his blood in obedience to his Father, we must be willing to pour out our lives to God without the leaven of malice and wickedness.

The principles behind the Law of Moses are timeless. We would do well to strive to abstain from the pollution’s of the idols that this world has to offer so that we can remain as chaste virgins espoused to Christ. We should not be influenced by those who refuse to submit to the redemption which is in Christ; we should not use our life-blood to serve ourselves but should pour out our lives in service to our Heavenly Father. Our separation to God, and from the world around us, will be evident if only we can live up to our high calling. We surely rely upon the grace, mercy and forgiveness of God through Jesus Christ our Savior to appear acceptable before Him. Sincerely, your sister in Christ Jesus,

Linda Cadieux, Toronto, ONT

Regarding TV

Dear Don:

Regarding the article by Bro. Dan Billington on “Renewing Our Minds:” most of what he says about TV is true. There is, however, much that is useful, educational and/or entertaining available at the press of a button.

For example, there is the Discovery channel which devotes six hours each morning to educational programs which can be used in schools to instruct chil­dren. Some of the programs have information for mature young people. Quite often, this 86 year-old great-grandmother learns something of value, even though I seldom watch any program for more than a few minutes as I keep busy doing other things. Also, there are the News, Weather and public broadcasting channels which frequently present very interesting films on nature and travel.

And always there is the “OFF” button which can be pressed if the subject proves uninteresting or offensive.

…As for the advertising and bothersome interludes on TV, it is possible to press the “Mute” button until worthwhile material reappears.

…We are also aware that the criticisms leveled against TV are applicable to magazines and books and even to the “funnies,” which can be totally obnoxious and unsuitable for anyone.

We have to be in the world but not hermits in a cave. We have to be selective in what we look at, read and do.

Thank you,
Margaret Cooper Knorr
Port Charlotte, FL

Atoning Sacrifice of Christ

Dear Bro. Don,

Loving greetings in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I enjoyed very much the article in the March “Tidings” entitled, “The Atoning Sacrifice of Christ.” I agree with Bro. Cooper that these vital issues are not given enough attention. I have noticed that, time and again, all of the symbolic terms are employed in our memorial services, yet seldom are these wonderful truths expressed in plain language. Surely, when we partake of the emblems, we must be able to discern the body and blood of our Lord.

There is one question, however, that has been troubling me. We know that it is through an understanding and identification with the declaration of God’s righteousness in Christ that we receive the forgiveness of sins. How is it, then, that his sacrifice can atone for the sins of those who lived in times past? In Matthew 13:35, we read that Jesus spoke concerning “…things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.” How then could his sacrifice atone for those who could not yet comprehend the mystery?

Much love in Christ,
Dan Garan, Yonkers, NY

This is a vital and interesting question deserving of far more comment than the brief answer we offer here. Interestingly, 140 years ago, questions arose amongst the Jewish community in New York City which prompted Bro. John Thomas to write a series of articles which later were published under the title Phanerosis. The issue addressed was the consistent revelation of the divinely-provided Savior in Old and New Testaments. We commend that publication in response to our brother’s query.

The citation contained in Matthew 13:35 is from Psalm 78:2. Reading verses 2-4 of that Psalm provides a key to the answer. Of the secret things the Psalmist says, “which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us…shewing…the praises of the LORD, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done.” (Note the echo of the last words in I Cor. 1:24,30.)

The principles of God’s plan were thus known to believers from the beginning. We remember it is said of Abraham, he “rejoiced to see my day (Christ’s day): and he saw it (in prospect, from the early revelation of God’s purpose), and was glad” (John 8:56). In Phanerosis, there is a marvelous exposition of David’s perception as revealed in I Chronicles 17:18. David praises God for regarding him “in the lineage of the ascending Adam.” He looked forward to the Messiah as the second Adam who would open the way to life, in contrast to the first Adam who afflicted the race with death.

From the foundation of the world, however, these principles were kept secret from hardened hearts exemplified by the multitudes who rejected the Lord’s teaching. The Lord was following the exact pattern indicated in the Psalm when he taught in parables to the multitude, so that hearing they would not understand, but instructed the disciples in plain terms.

The only things not revealed in advance were “the time and circumstances” of the Savior (I Peter 1:11 NIV).

Look at how much is contained in Genesis chapters 2-4. From Genesis 3:15, it is clear God would provide a savior from the human race. The individual would be the seed of the woman but not of the man. Despite being disobeyed, God would graciously and miraculously provide a savior.

Adam, Eve and Cain all were punished because they refused to obey God. They did not believe He was true to His word; they did not believe that His way was right. On the other hand, Abel did. He obeyed, believing God would be gracious and true to His promises.

Old Testament believers had to embrace the very same principles revealed by the Lord Jesus. They had to understand and believe that God is right, that He is faithful and that we are saved by His grace.

These are the essential principles of the righteousness of God.

While those before Christ could not look back on his life retrospectively as we can, they could understand the prin­ciples and could look forward to the promised savior who was to come.

“Return” is Close

Dear Friends in the Gospel,

I enjoy the little booklet, “Tidings,” each month and I admire your awareness of the times we live in growing short in accordance with Bible prophecy concerning the last days. The world’s evils are beginning to increase to proportions that set the stage for the coming of the beast, the dragon and the false prophet.

The way I read, the gathering of the just and the resurrection will be the first events of the end times. God always takes His people out before destruction comes. So it was at the flood and also before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Then will come all the woes written in Revelation and the prophets and the gathering of the nations to Jerusalem to fight. Apparently Russia will be the leader of this hostile hoard of anti-Christ armies to proceed to make war on the Jewish people. Practically all the countries of Europe can be grouped as Gog and Magog and they of the north coun­try. Even the USA can be included because we have a large block of population here from those countries. It seems the UN may be the instrument that will gather the nations for the battle.

Perhaps one of their UN resolutions to force Israel to make a peace agreement with the Arabs could be the occasion for mustering the nations to fight.

Terrible times are ahead.

Sincerely and God bless,
Wm. C. Hutchison P.O. Box 12823
Arlington, VA 22209

Someone in the Arlington area may wish to contact our correspondent, to discuss the points he has made. We do not know how Mr. Hutchinson secured a copy of the magazine as he was not previously on our mailing list.

Doctrinal Issues Raised by CGAF

Dear Bro. Don,

Loving greetings in the Lord Jesus Christ.

In a couple of places in the January issue of “Tidings,” the statement was made that the doctrine of the One Body is not included in our Statement of Faith (Editorial, pg.2 and the article on the history of the CGAF, pg.26). The impression was thus given, intentionally or otherwise, that the Statement of Faith is somehow deficient in an important area. But is this in fact the case? Clause XIV of the BASF states clearly that the Lord Jesus Christ is priest “over his own house only, and does not intercede for the world, or for professors who are abandoned to disobedience.” Furthermore, among the scriptures cited in support of this clause is a verse from the Lord’s intercessory prayer in John 17 upon which the doctrine of the One Body is based.

The important message, of course, is that the One Body is united upon the basis of One Faith to give glory to One God, the Father (Eph. 4:4-6). Where there is no agreement on the first prin­ciples of Truth,we have to say sadly that true fellowship does not exist.

Sincerely your brother,
Michael Ashton, Birmingham, UK

Dear Bro. Don,

I would like to respond to a few points that other readers have raised in letters to you.

First, Mark Mattison (Feb. ’93, pg. 79) is correct that universal resurrection was espoused by some (CGAF members) in the 19th century. The point worth stressing, however, is that it was opposed by the official CGAF publications.

Beginning with the “Gospel Banner,” continuing through the “Herald of the Coming Kingdom,” and concluding with “The Restitution,” there is a seamless official position against universal resurrection. Bro. A.R. Underwood, editor of “The Restitution,” wrote in the April 5, 1911 edition, “The present management has maintained the same ground as all its past managing editors have — from Benjamin Wilson (until now). That position ever was and is opposition to universal (resurrection).”

The real issue with the Ministerial Association was one of controlling the official position of the CGAF. They knew what “The Restitution” was: The official Organ of “The General Conference of Churches of God in Christ Jesus, for the United States and Canada” (the actual heading in the paper). They wanted to make universal resurrection an “official” doctrine, so they mounted a takeover attempt. When that failed, they created their own paper (“The Restitution Herald”) and simply redefined the central Organ and the central doctrine. A handful of churches would not have it and they continue as the CGAF that I described in the January “Tidings.”

Second, in response to Michael Ash-ton’s letter, I would simply suggest that the doctrine of the “one body” has not received the attention that it warrants in scripture. It is not found in the CGAF Confession of Faith and, despite the suggestion that it is found in article 14 of the BASF, one has to admit the reference is oblique.

In Paul’s brief statement of faith in Ephesians 4, the doctrine of the one body is the first of his first principles. Why? Verses 2 and 3 provide the answer. To be worthy of our calling, we must approach fellow believers with the right spirit — one that is meek, forbearing, “making every effort” (NIV) to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. Without such devotion and the hard work it demands, the body will not be one. Can we keep Paul’s statement of faith if we fail on the first count?

Paul argues in I Corinthians 12 that the body of Christ is interdependent, not independent. Put simply, Paul argues that members of the body need each other, no matter how unseemly one part appears to the other.

History sheds useful light on the subject of the one body. In an address in Edinburgh, Scotland on October 25 , 1868, Benjamin Wilson reflected on the state of the brotherhood then. “In reference to unity of the faith, I find that a spirit of dissension is everywhere — that the one body has been divided…Why should it be so?…Two bodies to one head is a monstrosity…What is to be done under the circumstances?…I know there are extremists on both sides, yet I would endeavor to bring (them) together, and teach them they should bear and forbear with one another in love. ..We are to love as brethren, (but) how this is lost sight of! …O , that brethren in general would break (their) stiff-neckedness …that they would but bow their stubborn wills, and think that they do not know everything; that their word only is the truth..Brethren, let us, then, cultivate (a) spirit of affection and love, this unity of the faith, and I think we may counteract some of the pernicious tendencies of others…if we do this we shall be living epistles, read and known of all men, lights to irradiate the darkness by which we are surrounded.” (Messenger of the Churches, December 1, 1868)

May these fine words of exhortation take root and grow in our day.

Mark Drabenstott, Parkville, MO

Bro. Ashton’s comments are appreciated. Our editorial remark was, “the doctrine of the one body is not included in the statement of faith of most ecclesias.” That was inaccurate as Bro. Ashton points out.

There is only one allusion to the doctrine in the positive statements, however, and, as indicated above, that allusion is oblique. It should also be noted that opportunity to right the bal­ance is not taken in the sections on “Doctrines To Be Rejected” and “The Commandments of Christ.” Considering the unity of the body was an issue in the 1860’s and 70’s (note the above quote from Benjamin Wilson), many are justifiably surprised that this fundamental first principle was not given the attention in the BASF that it deserves.

Ecclesia Formed in California

Dear Bro. Don,

Enclosed is correspondence from our ecclesia (see “North State, CA” under “Ecclesial News”) which we would appreciate having inserted in the next “Tidings.” We are in an ideal location for retirement and are hoping that perhaps others will be interested in locating in our area. I will try to send in reports more frequently from now on and perhaps our numbers will increase.

My daughter, S is. Sharon Feola ,was recently visiting your ecclesia with my granddaughter, Sis. Rachel Feola, getting her moved so she could attend school there. She mentioned that you were researching some of the history of the Christadelphian families…(we are and welcome historical information).

We enjoy the “Tidings” greatly and appreciate your efforts, which we know from experience take a great deal of your time. When my father, Bro. Carl Wolfe, and Bro. Oscar Beauchamp first started the “Tidings,” I was in high school and I can recall myself and my sisters helping in the garage where they had an old printing press and a linotype machine…

In the hope of Israel,
Dorothy Clarke Magalia, CA