Comment from Abroad
Dear Bro. Don,
Bro. Michael Owen’ s response to my article is an excellent restatement of the traditional Christadelphian position on fellowship — the position that led to numerous divisions in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and is still blocking attempts at reunion today. May I make three short comments on it.
First, 1 am puzzled by his conclusion that “Our first responsibility is humility before God…in the same spirit of humility and love we shall continue to invite all who would meet with us on that same basis (the BASF) to do so, so that we can walk together…” In practice, this means that we shall go on saying to our brethren of a rejected Christadelphian fellowship what we have said, in effect, for nearly a century: “We are certain that our statement is right and yours is wrong. Consequently, if you will change your views and accept ours, then we shall welcome you. But otherwise, nothing doing.” Seen from Bro. Michael’s point of view, this might seem to reflect the “spirit of humility and love;” but it is unlikely that our rejected brethren see it that way!
Second, it is a principle of natural justice that we should give people the benefit of the doubt. That is why most Americans would rather see ten murderers go free than one innocent man go to the electric chair. And it is why many of us think it is the lesser of two evils to accept ten members who might eventually (on judgment day) turn out not to have been true children of God, rather than to risk excluding from our fellowship one person who turns out to have been a true disciple. If we are confident that the brethren in another Christadelphian fellowship are not true disciples, then we may safely keep them at arm’s length. But if there is a real possibility that they might be in fellowship with God, dare we go on denying them fellowship with us?
Finally, an open-minded reading of the New Testament gives the impression that expulsion from the ecclesia was a rather rare occurrence in those days. It appears to have been a last resort, reserved for cases of seriously unchristian behavior and really significant doctrinal errors. In Corinth, there were some who had been getting drunk at the breaking of bread, some who had wrong ideas about resurrection (but who, unlike Hymenaeus, evidently were not destroying the faith of others), some who were taking their brethren to court, and some who were in the habit of eating meat in pagan temples. Yet the only person in Corinth who Paul said must be expelled was the man who was sleeping with his own stepmother.
Moreover, in the only “withdrawal” passage in the gospels (Matt. 18:17), Jesus commands us to treat the expelled brother as “an heathen man and a publican.” Do we really want to look upon our brethren in another Christadelphian fellowship like that? Because, if not, then it might be wise to stop claiming that our present behavior toward them is scriptural.
With love in the Lord’s own family,
Alan Hayward, Bristol, UK
Note of Appreciation
Dear Bro. Styles,
Thank you for your editorial in May on “Personalities” and Bro. Alan Hayward’ s contribution in June on “Divisions” — excellent articles!
As you point out, personalities differ and they often clash and, as a result, we divide and cause much harm to ourselves and great pain and grief to our Heavenly Father. I suspect a clash of personalities is what caused the separation years ago. We are thankful and joyful that in some cases we have grown to recognize it and correct it… We very often do not see the problem in ourselves until someone closely related to us points it out…Some of us have, perhaps in our mistaken zeal for “contending earnestly,” driven away honest hearts by our attitude of superiority and our argumentative manner.
We should remember the command to wives married to unbelieving husbands — they were to save them by their way of life. It is a principle we need to follow… We draw men to Christ by our love and by an attitude of joy…Thank you again for helping us see ourselves and correct our spirit.
Yours truly,
A. Crouse, Crescenta, CA
PCCARC Letter
Dear Bro. Don,
Greetings in Jesus’ name.
We were surprised to note that the PCCARC letter dated 4/30/94 regarding the Belmont/Northern California reunion effort was not the same letter that was published in the June issue of the “Tidings.” Did you receive a copy of the 4130194 letter from the PCCARC for publication or did the PCCARC send you a different, more condensed letter for publication?
We believe that items one through four on page two of the 4/30/94 letter, clearly defining current fellowship policy, and which were not reported in the June “Tidings,” would be of vital interest to many of the readers of the “Tidings” and should be published to the Amended brotherhood.
Your brethren in Christ,
Alvan Brittle, Mt. Airy,
MD Robert Kling, Laurel, MD
We did receive the April 30, 1994 letter from the Pacific Coast Christadelphian Amended Reunion Committee (PCCARC) for publication in the “Tidings.” Since the letter was addressed to ecclesias on the Pacific coast, it referred to a number of meetings and letters which those ecclesias would know about, but other ecclesias would not. We felt a condensed version of the letter covering the highlight items would be more useful to ecclesias throughout the rest of North and Central America and the Caribbean (remembering that the “Tidings” is distributed to all ecclesias in the Western Hemisphere.) We suggested a modified version to Bro. Richard Patterson and, after making a few alterations, he concurred with the idea. We are quite pleased, however, to reproduce the section containing the items alluded to above:
From the PCC ARC letter 4/30/94:
“We are pleased to convey to you this report on the fellowship practice of the four ecclesias in Northern California that recently united with the Central community.
As you know, in December of 1991, the brethren and sisters of the Belmont, Mendocino, Merced and Mariposa ecclesias, who were formerly in the Unamended Fellowship, submitted notices that were published stating that they had accepted the principles expressed by the BASF and were uniting with the Central community.
Subsequently some concerns were expressed regarding Belmont’ s fellowship practice. At the PCCARC meeting of January 16, 1993 those concerns were aired and discussed. It was decided to recommend an 18-month transition period during which Belmont was asked to address these concerns and provide assurance to the brotherhood that their practice will conform to normal Central Fellowship practice.
In response to this request, the PCCARC met with and received communications from the Belmont Ecclesia. After each PCCARC member had reviewed the communications received from Belmont, we met as a committee with representatives from the Belmont Ecclesia at our regularly scheduled meeting on April 17, 1994. At that meeting we confirmed with the Belmont brethren our understanding of their current fellowship policy, which is as follows:
- The basis of their fellowship since uniting with the Central community is the doctrines and precepts embodied in the BASF.
- No fellowship can exist where this basis is lacking.
- When traveling, their members will attend and break bread at ecclesias which use this same basis: Central ecclesias.
- They will welcome to participate in their breaking of bread service visitors from those Central ecclesias.
We believe that this agrees with the generally accepted fellowship policy and practice of the Central ecclesias and conforms to the request that was made of Belmont as set forth in the minutes of the April 18, 1993 PCCARC meeting. We believe that the concerns that led to the recommendation of an 18-month transition period have now been adequately reviewed and dealt with…”
Job’s Satan
Dear Bro. Don,
The identity of Satan in the book of Job has long been a question of interest to me. Like Bro. Kurtis, I find the suggestion of Satan being an angel inconsistent with what the scripture reveals about the nature and work of the angels. Satan seems to disappear after the introduction. This along with other evidence supports the idea that Job’s suffering leads to Satan’s conversion. This malicious “son of God” benefits from the suffering of righteous Job and is in the end no longer an “adversary.”
I would like to submit another idea which focuses on the specific context of the book of Job. I would be most interested in comments. Job is a deep and complex book. It has many facets, including a very personal one which speaks to the heart of those who have suffered extraordinary trials. But Job is also the first of the Wisdom books. As such, it deals with a philosophical argument: namely, that God rewards people in this life. If bad things happen , it’s because you did something bad. If you are faithful and good, God gives you material blessings.
Satan’s accusation was that Job’s motivation for serving God had to do with the benefits received in exchange for his righteousness — his wealth, flocks, family, the hedge of protection God had placed around him.
We do not know Satan’s motivation. Since he is one of the sons of God, his intentions might be sincere. Maybe he has reason to believe that selfishness is the real reason for Job’s apparently perfect life, that Job is righteous only because God repays him for his good works. Or, maybe Satan is jealous of Job and wants to prove his righteousness is a sham.
Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar are called the three “comforters.” In fact, they were exactly the opposite. To all Job’s losses and pain, they added a further psychological trial, by telling him that all these troubles were punishment for his wickedness.
The reasoning centers on the false doctrine of “exact retribution,” expressed in this syllogism:
- All suffering is punishment for sin.
- Job is suffering terribly.
- Therefore, Job is a terrible sinner.
Job reacts emotionally to the cold, heartless, comfortless arguments. He proclaims his innocence and is bitter that he cannot question God about why He is making him suffer. God seems to be breaking His own rules. Job begins to doubt God’s justice. In defending himself, he does not consider the possibility he may have some weakness. He suggests God uses His great power without mercy.
Job’s righteousness does not appear to have been motivated by love of God. He seems unable to see the kind, merciful side of God’s character. The New Testament talks about the “goodness and severity” of God. Job seems to appreciate only the “severity.” To him, God is a strict, very powerful and unfeeling master. He talks about storms, and earthquakes — how the poor suffer and the wicked enjoy their riches.
Then, just before Elihu’ s speech, Job lets slip (31:23) that the motivation for his good deeds and devotion to God was that he feared losing all he had if he didn’t show himself worthy. Elihu homes in on Job, whose true attitudes have been revealed through his suffering. As Satan suspected, Job did think he could “earn” his blessings by serving God. In his effort to do all the right things, he had lost sight of the love and majesty of God.
It is important to bear in mind that Job is written in the style of a dramatic poem, with the story line in prose at the beginning and end. Try to “stage” this drama, because what happens on stage may be pivotal in understanding the role of Satan.
What does Satan do after Scene I? Since the whole purpose of Job’s trial is to answer Satan’s question, the staging must allow for Satan to observe everything; this is also necessary if he is converted. To accommodate this, the stage directions might state his back always faces the audience as he speaks to God, and then he observes from the side, only his back visible.
Where does Elihu come from? We are told only three friends came. Yet Elihu seems to have observed the entire interchange. Did four people actually arrive, even though the Bible distinctly says there were only three? It seems as though Elihu appears out of nowhere — as soon as Job tacitly admits to Satan’s original accusation.
Could Satan be Elihu? Visualize the scene on stage: Satan turns around, revealing his identity as Elihu, and then addresses Job.
In the end, God does not condemn Job, although He does reprimand him for accusing Him of injustice. He corrects Job’s misconception about His ability to rule creation, but does not accuse Job of sin, or call him self-righteous or a blasphemer. And Job, on his side, learns that he must love God totally and unconditionally, as God loves His creation.
The beneficiaries when all is over are Job and his three friends. We are told nothing about what happens to Satan or Elihu, nor are they condemned or reprimanded.
Was Job’s adversary a cruel, slanderous, wayward “worshiper” of God? Or was he a young believer questioning the motivation of his elder? Whatever the identity of Satan, the book of Job offers a wealth of help, instruction and interesting study.
While re-studying the book of Job to prepare a children’s play for a Bible school, I was amazed to find myself coming to the conclusion that Satan and Elihu must be the same person. I was aware that some commentators believe this, but always thought it a strange idea until then.
Your sister in Christ,
Ethel Archard, Kanata, ONT
We find the basic suggestion fascinating and look forward to reader’s comments. There are two peripheral points, however, which we feel need correction.
- “[God] does not accuse Job of sin, or call him self-righteous or a blasphemer” we feel is not correct in light of such statements as: “Wilt thou condemn me that thou mayest be righteous…then will I confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee” (40:8,14). We feel Job considers himself the source of his right conduct (cf. 41:11) and that condemning God is blasphemy.
- The idea of “unconditional” love is not scriptural. “The righteous LORD loveth righteousness…but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth” (Psa. 11:7,4). God’s love is conditional on a right response to His mercy. Those who despise Him will suffer consequences for it.
While important, these are but side points to the main thesis developed by Sis. Archard.
Strong’s Concordance