In the May issue of the Tidings, an appeal was made by the Montego Bay, Jamaica Ecclesia for a special kind of help. There is another Christadelphian meeting in town which instructs its members to have no association with our ecclesia there. Members of both ecclesias were baptized into the same basic truths and nobody on either side is claiming local members differ in belief or moral standards.
The reason for the situation goes back to problems in Britain and America in the 1920’s over differences respecting Adamic condemnation, and in the 1940’s over problems regarding divorce. The tragedy of exporting the schism 5,000 miles to Montego Bay seems obvious from our vantage point.
Africa and Russia
Further discussion about the situation led to more unhappy stories.
Two men work at the same branch bank in a central African country. One lunch hour, they happened to drift into discussion about the Bible. As one comment led to another, they were both amazed at the similarity of their beliefs until they discovered that had both been instructed and baptized by Christadelphians.
To their queries of how this could be when the Truth had only been advertised in that country for five years, it turned out that the missionary brethren had come from different fellowships and neither had told their contacts about the other group of Christadelphians in the area. The local brethren themselves had no difference at all on the issues which supposedly justified the division.
In one Russian city, a brother thought he was the only Christadelphian in the area. For two years he has been worshiping in isolation except for those times when a visitor came from afar. Then, through an unusual combination of circumstances, he discovered a little group of Christadelphians existed and was flourishing in the city. What a thrilling discovery, until he found he could not break bread with them and still meet with those who had taught him the Truth. There was a division back home which was being exported to the mission field.
We can believe it
These are not hypothetical cases, they are real! Unfortunately, many of us can believe they are factual because we have seen similar situations firsthand. We have seen people, some of them blood relatives, living in the same town, believing the same doctrines, trying to keep the same commands, who do not share the Lord’s table because of some situation 2,000 miles away, or 100 years old.
Ironically, brethren on both sides of such divisions tacitly admit a schism in the body of Christ. The unspoken admission comes when people can transfer from one fellowship to the other without being baptized. It is thus conceded by both sides that people in either group have been validly baptized into the Christ-body.
The situation is unhappy, hurtful and discouraging, but more than that, it is sinful. Sometimes we need to pause and remember that division in the body is deplorable.
Dichostasia
The word is used only three times in the Greek New Testament, but consideration of these occurrences makes a powerful point.
- “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions (dichostasia) and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16:17-18).
The indictment is severe. Those who fragment the ecclesial community disobey the gospel, do not serve Christ and are mastered by the flesh (“their own belly”). - “For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions (dichostasia), are ye not carnal and walk as men?” (I Cor. 3:3).
Note the repetition of the word “carnal” in vs. 1-4. The divisionists may be actively involved in ecclesial affairs and may make convincing speeches, but if their influence is divisive, they are carnal and not spiritual. - “Now the works of the flesh ..sedition’s (dichostasia)…they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:20).
A clear link is made in all three passages: division is not a fruit of the spirit; it is a work of the flesh.
Rejecting heresy
At times, disfellowship is necessary. The Lord severely rebuked the ecclesia at Pergamos because they had them that held the doctrine of Balaam, teaching licentiousness is acceptable, and those who held the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes. At Thyatira, the ecclesia was permitting “that woman Jezebel…to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication” (Rev. 2:14-15, 20). And the apostle John admonishes, “if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine [the doctrine that Christ was truly of our nature], receive him not into your house…” (II John 10).
When the ecclesias stood up to serious error, the false teachers left, sometimes taking with them a number of supporters. “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us…” (I John 2:19). The ecclesia took the initiative against the false teacher. His supporters took their own initiative to leave. Thus it was clear that the departure of a group of people was not the fault of faithful brethren. Their intent was to remove the ungodly teacher that the rest of the ecclesia might be saved.
Diotrephes had a practice we should avoid: He disfellowshipped the teacher who opposed him and all of his followers. Furthermore, any who would receive the followers of his opponent he “casteth them out of the church” (II John 9-10). Here was an extreme form of contamination by association practiced by a man who was not interested in the body of Christ but in his own preeminence.
In Jamaica, central Africa and Russia, both fellowships acknowledge the same statement of faith and nobody is commending licentious conduct. The basis of maintaining two communities does not fit New Testament guidelines for disfellowship, but it does bear a frightening parallel to the practice of Diotrephes.
One body
Underlying this whole area of concern is the very basic intent of God to bring many individuals into His one name. We are not saved through many lords, but through one. We are not saved by many faiths but by one. We are not called to varied hopes, but to one. We are not members of many spiritual families, but of one; “for there is One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:4-6).
The idea of the one Christ-body is an integral aspect of the oneness of God; that is why division in the body is such grievous sin.
An existing division
In the three cases we have cited, however, a new division is not being created. An existing one is being exported to developing ecclesial areas, no doubt against the spiritual instincts of the brethren involved. But what else can they do? Back home the two communities are separate. How can visiting missionaries break bread together in the mission field but not do so back home? Seemingly the only way to avoid confusion is to preserve existing lines.
If we were dealing with a fraternal society of our own creation, avoiding confusion would be a plausible rationale. The one body is not ours, however, it is Christ’s, and he is the one who condemns schisms in his body. The only thing that is decent and in order is applying his will in our lives. Perpetuating an existing division is obviously counter to that will.
Difficult considerations
If anything is done to heal the breach, trouble and commotion will occur in the existing communities. Some will contend sentimentality is being favored over Bible doctrine. Others will fear barriers dropped in mission areas will open the way for general decline. Charges will be made that compromise is the spirit of the age and this is just another compromise. From a human point of view, the easiest thing to do is export the division.
Furthermore, any attempt at reconciliation will hit another barrier. The doctrines involved are not easy to articulate or readily defined in scripture. Christadelphians are on both sides of the division. If the matters were as clear as the mortality of man or the oneness of God, everyone would be in agreement, for Christadelphians accept unambiguous Bible teaching.
To bring the groups together will require careful examination of verses on divorce. From discussions in this magazine, we know a detailed policy on this matter cannot rightly be imposed on an entire fellowship. In addition, the groups will need a precise understanding of Romans chapters 3-8 regarding Adamic condemnation.
A great irony will occur if reconciliation discussions are attempted. People will find the differences between the two fellowships also exist within each fellowship. Many will have discussed the same Bible passages with brethren in their own ecclesia and agreed to differ, tolerating a variant opinion. But when the same variance is expressed by the other fellowship, they will find this very difference has been the cause of the division and must be repudiated before reconciliation can occur.
Clearly, the easiest course is to leave well enough alone and keep exporting division. Is this acceptable? Not when the doctrine of the one body in Christ is involved; the issue is too important. Rather let the obvious anomalies in Jamaica, central Africa and Russia be the impetus to rectify a grievous situation.
It can be done
Having considered the difficulties of reconciling existing divisions, it is with great thanksgiving that we draw attention to the “Ecclesial News” from Calgary later in this issue. Brethren on both sides recognized that inheriting a division did not justify maintaining it. With blessings from above, their fervent prayers and humble initiative have overcome the human barriers. May the resulting union be richly blessed by our Lord and strengthened by the fellowship of the saints.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One