Letters to the Editor

Mothers

Dear Bro. Don,

I was at first pleased to see an article on “Mothers” in the September magazine. I am thankful to have been able to be a stay-at-home Mom and am concerned to see sister-mothers working full time outside the home.

I was disturbed, however, at the tone of the article which seems to put men down and elevate women. Where in scripture are we led to believe that “the distinctive duties of woman are more sacred, more holy, than those of man.” I think the spiritual develop­ment of our children is a combined effort. As sisters, we are greatly helped by our husband’s support, the ecclesial structure our brethren provide and the many books and magazines produced by brethren. Of course, the help of our Heavenly Father and His word is of utmost importance in this matter.

In the article, men are presented as spending their time with things that must perish while the mother works for eternity. It suggests we would be as­tonished if we knew how much more favorably God views the work of mothers than fathers. Who are we to de­cide how God judges? It is said that “the man frequently comes home with a satisfied air;” that he expects to be waited on; that he may criticize and censure. I do not think this is fair to the many faithful brethren who do a days work (which surely is important and part of God’s will) and come home to share their time and spiritual resources with their wives and children. Then they often go on to do hours of ecclesial work.

From experience, I think that a sister at home has a lot more control over her time, except when the chil­dren are very young. A brother’s demands are often very great.

Finally, I do not like to think of myself as “queen” in my household. My mind went immediately to what the Bible has to say of the queen of heaven.

I think it is a good thing to emphasize the importance of a mother’s role but it must be done with balance and not at the expense of men.

Sincerely in our Lord Jesus,
Pam Snobelen, Vancouver, BC

Very astute observations. As indi­cated, the article was edited from its original form, but obviously not edited enough. There can be little doubt that a lay system makes a significant difference in the activities of husbands and fathers. The original writer of the article was in a community with the normal pastor system. We see that reflected in the depiction of the activi­ties of her “typical” fathers.

While scripture may not describe mothers as “queen” of the house, it does use some strong words in conveying their importance. They should “guide the house,” (KJV) or “rule the house” (translation by A. Way) or be “managing the household” (Concordant Literal translation) (I Tim. 5:14). Literally the Greek word is “house despot” which conveys the strength of the mother’s influence on the household.

Home Schooling

Dear Bro. Don:

A point that caught my eye in the August issue (pg. 343) may need some clarification or correction. In your re­sponse to one of the home schooling letters, you comment that “secular schooling is to prepare individuals for the temporal aspects of their lives, i.e., to make a living.” This may be true in some instances. But we need to be aware that there are social activists whose avowed purpose is to mold our young people into new social thought patterns. They are attempting to do this through the school.

There are people who want to throw out “old-fashioned” morality and replace it with libertarian ideas. If they can capture and train the minds of the young, they can transform soci­ety in one generation. Gay rights activists spring to mind in this regard, as do those who would promote free sex and abortion on demand. Don’t think that schools exist only to teach and train a workforce. Schools increasingly are being used to pursue a lib­eral social agenda.

I commend your family’s regular re-schooling of children in God’s way, to try to counteract the worldly teach­ing of the public schools. All parents need to be aware of the need for this as the day of the Lord approaches.

Yours in Christ,
John Linsenmeier, Mentor, OH,
Church of the Blessed Hope

Your comments are completely appropriate for the school system at­tended by our boys. The trend was particularly noticeable in the “values clarification” and sex education ses­sions.

At first, this caught us by surprise. We were expecting to counter indoctrination in love of country above all else and some evangelizing regarding evolution. But we had not realized the extent to which those advocating amoral values had infiltrated the school system. Their appeal is cleverly concealed behind the idea of mutual respect for the standards of others. But as you point out, the standards we’re being asked to respect are approving of the worst forms of decadence which, when practiced, bring down the wrath of God upon society.

Bethany Beyond Jordan

(See “Tidings,” p. 410, footnote #4 for background to discussion re­garding a possible Bethany located near the Jordan River. This would be in addition to the Bethany located on the eastern side of the Mt. of Olives.)

Dear Bro. Don,

Greetings in the Hope of eternal life.

My reference to the Bethany be­yond Jordan as the location of our Lord just prior to his coming to Bethany near Jerusalem is based upon a reading of John 10:40,41 (NIV).

“Then Jesus went back across the Jor­dan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. Here he stayed and many people came to him.” According to John’s text, just prior to that, many of the Jews had attempted to stone him. That had taken place in the “winter” (John 10:22).

Identifying that place “across the Jordan” as Bethany does require some evidence. In John 1:28, it is stated in the KJV that, “These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.” That, of course, says Bethabara in the English version. While it does in the English transla­tion, it appears that many of the Greek texts do not favor that name. The 1881 “Novum Testamentum Graece,” with textual notes by Alexander Souter and based upon the ancient Greek manuscript called Codex Siniaticus which was discovered by C. Tischen­dorf, contains the Greek term Bet hania rather than Bethabara. Bethania is also favored by the “Emphatic Di­aglott,” by a special UBS edition of the New Testament edited by Nestle, Black, Netzger and Wikgren, by the third UBS edition of the Greek New Testament (known as the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland “Novum Testa­mentum Graece,” with textual notes by Barbara and Timothy Friberg) and by the “Greek Majority Text.” The last named version is somewhat peculiar in that it contains the word Bethania in the Greek, but renders it as “Bethabara,” in the New King James parallel text.

The final witness we appeal to is the translator Bruce Metzger. In his “A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament,” pg. 199, he writes, “The earliest and most widely attested reading is Bethania. Origen, who in his travels was unable to locate a Bethany by the Jordan, adopted the reading Bethabara, which he apparently found in a few copies current in his day (he declares, however, that Bethania is the reading of ‘nearly all the manuscripts’)…”

While not overwhelming, we felt the greatest evidence favors the “place on the other side of the Jordan” being Bethany. It seems somewhat ironic that there would be two towns by that name on either side of the Jordan, since Israel settled on both sides of the Jordan, especially if the name indicates “house of unripe figs.”

Regardless of the precise location or name of the place where Jesus was, it was where John had baptized earlier, just on the other side of the Jordan, and was not a great distance from the Bethany of Lazarus, Mary and Martha.

Love in our Lord,
Troy Haltom

Clarification Regarding Statements of Faith

While correspondence on this topic has been closed, Bro. Alan Eyre re­quested it be quite specifically indi­cated he is in 100% agreement with Bro. John Carter’s comments as pub­lished in the Tidings, 10/94, pg. 397.

David in the Psalms

Dear Uncle Don,

I have a question about the article, “David–the Fugitive Years.” As my Mom and I were reading the article, I noticed there weren’t any Psalms listed when David was a shepherd. Are there any from this time period? If so, could you send them to mark in my Bible? Thank you.

Yours truly,
Joel Miles, Fergus, ONT

Uncle Don forwarded Joel’s letter (Joel is 10) to Uncle Ron who supplied the following answer.

I was pleased to receive Joel’s let­ter and to learn that he has been fol­lowing the series on David. It is rewarding to find young people taking an interest in these matters.

The question requests a list of pos­sible psalms written by David when he was a shepherd boy. As far as we can determine, the only psalms which we can, with any certainty, identify with this period are Psalms 8 and 144.

In our first article, we listed these psalms under the heading, “David the Warrior,” a reference to David’s encounter with Goliath. At this time, David was still looking after his father’ s sheep on the hillsides of Bethlehem as is noted in I Samuel 17:15-16: “But David went and returned from Saul to feed his father’s sheep at Bethlehem. And the Philistine [Goliath] drew near morning and evening and presented himself forty days.”

Psalms 8 and 144

While Psalm 8 is generally ac­cepted as David’s victory psalm over Goliath, or the death of a champion (muth-labben), some may have difficulty in accepting Psalm 144 as refer­ring to the same period. Verse 3 of Psalm 144 is a quotation from Psalm 8:4, linking the two psalms together and the Septuagint (an ancient transla­tion of the Old Testament into the Greek language) gives the title to Psalm 144 as, “A Psalm of David con­cerning Goliad,” a reference to Goliath.

We would suggest that Psalm 144 describes the thoughts of David as he set out to meet Goliath, praying that Yahweh would “rescue [him] , and de­liver [him] from the hand of strange children [the uncircumcised Philistines] , whose mouth speaketh vanity [a reference to Goliath’s defiance of God — I Sam. 17:26]” (v. 11). On the other hand, Psalm 8 expresses David’s elation after his victory over Goliath, “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength be­cause of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger” (v. 2).

Why not more early psalms?

It may be asked why are there not more psalms identified with this early period of David’s life. The answer possibly has something to do with the work of inspiration.

We are told that all scripture is given by inspiration of God and the writings of David are no exception.

According to Acts 2:30, David was a prophet; God spake “by the mouth of his servant David” (Acts 4:25), and this work was accomplished by the Holy Spirit (II Pet. 1:21). David did not receive the spirit of God until his teenage years, while he was tending his father’s sheep (I Sam. 16:11-13) shortly before the time that he challenged Goliath. Therefore, we may conclude that his psalms, while reflecting the experiences of this period [e.g. Psalm 23 ed.], were written later with the exception of Psalms 8 and 144.

Very truly yours,
Uncle Ron

(Several letters are to hand on several topics. We apologize for delaying their publication to a later month. We felt, however, the issue which follows should be thoroughly discussed with the matter then brought to a close.)

Which Position is Correct?

Dear Bro. Don,

Most affectionate greetings in Jesus, and in the bonds of the true faith.

I am amazed that, as a Christadelphian, you should ask the question, “Which position is correct?” (August, pg. 340).

All your life you have believed, and acted on, the position succinctly and devastatingly stated by Bro. Alan Hayward in the June issue. So have all Christadelphians who have died to the world and risen with Christ! The household of faith, the “one body” must be those, and only those, who have, through the “one baptism” embraced the “one faith” of Ephesians 4:3-6.

We know this is true. Is division within the household of faith merely “unhelpful” as Bro. Michael Owen expresses it, or ‘forbidden” as stated by Bro. Alan? What saith the scrip­ture? You know well enough. Division within the household is sin, be­cause we call those in other “fellowships” brother and sister. If they are brothers and sisters, they are invited by Christ to his table (it is not ours), unless they have been proven, as individuals or as groups, to be immoral (walking disorderly) or incorrigible , unrepentant heretics, preaching “another gospel.” In that case, they cannot be called in any sense brother or sister, even if they had once been baptized. We do not call those in the Apostasy brother and sister, do we?

There are four flaws in Bro. Michael’s argument…

1. “The brotherhood worldwide has come to exist on the basis of the scriptural teachings which we believe are set out in the BASF…This state­ment has been a great unifying factor.”

This is factually false as well as scripturally unsound. The “brother­hood worldwide” came to exist on the basis of the teaching of the apostles. In fact, even earlier than that, it in­cluded the faithful of Hebrews 11 from the days of Abel. Even if we wish to restrict our definition of the “brother­hood worldwide” to the last few cen­turies or to those with the name Chris­tadelphian (which obviously we have no authority or right to do), Bro. John Thomas knew nothing of the BASF or any wording like it. Many whom he converted lived and died before the name Christadelphian was invented…

2. We should bar fellowship at the table of the Lord to those who are be­lievers unless they are prepared to meet on the basis of the BASF.

Despite Bro. Owen’ s disclaimer in his last paragraph, Jesus considered such an attitude, when displayed by his closest disciples, to be “proud” and “arrogant,” as Bro. Owen can readily verify in twice-yearly reading of the Gospels. Except for evident sin and/or grievous heresy stubbornly persisted in, we have no right whatsoever to bar any believer, any brother or sis­ter, from the Lord’s table, far less whole groupings of ecclesias worldwide. Mary, my wife, has endeavored to serve the Lord faithfully, with an understanding of the Truth and a faith that I envy, and has never knowingly fellowshipped an unrepentant sinner or a heretic in her life, yet her own fa­ther, for forty years, has consistently refused to break bread with her, stat­ing that he could not face the judgment seat of Christ if he shared the Lord’s table with one who did not support his group and his group alone. We all know what John, the beloved elder, said about such an attitude as this. But this is precisely the position pre­sented by Bro. Owen’ s letter, is it not?

3. “Those who remain sepa­rate…”

This paragraph on pg. 338 is hu­man logic, not divine wisdom. Very significantly, no scriptural support ap­pears in this paragraph. Moreover, the extraordinary assumption in that paragraph, that the members of one particular organized group of believ­ers (“us,” “we”), using one private definition of the One Faith constitute a privileged group who can say to all others, “Join us or stay outside in the world and remain for ever debarred from the Lord’s table,” is arguing just like the JW’ s and SDA’ s and Catholics which many of us have left when we accepted the Truth.

4. An open table — accepting any­one whatever his beliefs — is the only alternative to a private table confined to those who use the BASF.

It is incredible how long-lived is this fallacious argument. It has been used for generations to uphold division and private, restricted memorial tables, keeping thousands of faithful believers outside in the cold. But my guess is that Bro. Michael could hardly find one brother or sister, among the thousands of us who are sick and tired of disputing’s and contentions and private tables, who would invite people from “other churches”

to break bread, as he so unkindly claims (p. 338). The Lord’s table is for believers. We know quite well who they are. They are those who love God, and whom we recognize as hav­ing been baptized into, and continue to believe, saving Truth, and walk worthy of it, whatever the name of their “fel­lowship,” or the human wording in which that faith may be expressed.

Bro. Don, you say “we should try to arrive at the scriptural definition of the body of Christ.” Surely we do not need to try. With very few exceptions, our preaching literature — tons of it, our essential baptismal instruction -­is virtually identical whatever our “fellowship” and whatever “division” we belong to. My own fifty-year experience, working with several hundred ecclesias in over thirty coun­tries, is that Bible believers, whatever the name of their group, know when a man is truly in Christ and when he is not. Instances when a baptism has been performed unnecessarily, or not performed when it should have been, are in my experience very rare indeed. This is the consensus which should unite us, not the BUSF, BASF, BASF with or without reservations, etc., etc..

…In fact, by far the most serious bitter and terrible division in the worldwide brotherhood today, and which is presently causing untold heartbreak in more than twenty coun­tries of the world, is between brothers and sisters who fully accept the BASF — namely, the ugly, carnal division be­tween “Dawn” and “Central” parties. Although “Dawn” actually use my writings, hundreds of beloved brethren and sisters who believe exactly as I do, and accept the identical statement of faith, have been forbidden to have anything whatsoever to do with me because, personally, I am unclean and only fit to be shunned.

Clearly, Bro. Don, something is terribly wrong, fundamentally wrong, in the approach laid out with such confidence by Bro. Owen. The only possible way forward for the Chris­tadelphian brotherhood, if we are to meet our Lord with joy and not with fear, is to heed Bro. Alan Hayward’ s call to recognize that our present situation is absolutely abhorrent to God (his own words were so gentle, whereas the scriptures are uncompromising!).

So, back to the original question, Bro. Don: can you ask, which position is correct? Wherever in scripture is this strange “continuum” you speak of?

In love, for Christ’s sake,
Alan Eyre, Free Hill, Jamaica

While we appreciate Bro. Eyre’s comments, we feel he has overlooked several points. Practical reality requires we have a written expression of our understanding of the first prin­ciples of the gospel. Given the volume of our literature, and the great variety of so-called “Christian” denomi­nations, a summary statement is mandatory.

Second, Bro. Owen makes per­fectly clear he is referring to the “scriptural teachings” conveniently summarized in the BASF. They could be put in different words, that is true, but the statement of faith has turned out to be so well written that it has proved wonderfully useful for over 100 years. Bro. Eyre’s own research has demonstrated how quickly under­standing of the first principles has been lost by different communities over the centuries. The BASF has surely played a major role in preventing a falling away among those who adhere to it.

Third, Bro. Eyre missed our point regarding, “we should try to arrive at the scriptural definition of the body of Christ.” The context of the remark was in terms of Bro. Hayward’s, and the New Testament, distinction be­tween believers and unbelievers, be­tween the temple of God and idols. Since there is a wide gap between the two, we should be able to define it with a degree of confidence that we have done it correctly. With Bro. Owen’s suggestion, any comfort level would be virtually impossible for “there would always be individuals and groups who believed nearly, but not quite the same things, about whose position we would agonize.” If he is right, we would always feel we were shunning true believers just the other side of the fence. We could have no peace as we continually worried we were dividing the body of Christ.

Agrees with Bro. Owen

Dear Bro. Don:

Further to your comments concern­ing the letter from Bro. Michael Owen in the August issue of the “Tidings,” I would like to mention my agreement fully with Bro. Owen. Your conclusion expressed in your final comment “Bro. Owen would present a continuum extending from exactly-right body to ‘almost-right’ and on through a series of gradations until we arrive at ‘totally wrong’,” would not be my conclusion from his letter. His submission expresses, in my opinion, the reality of the situation regarding fellowship as it has obtained for many years and con­tinues to do so and the need for the BASF as an epitome of the under­standing of divine principles by mem­bers of Central fellowship — to be used as the basis for unity. He also has presented valid reasons for this.

You say, “we should try to arrive at the scriptural definition of the body of Christ and define our basis of fellowship to include all who are in it.” Surely this has been done for some 200 years and was the reason for the initial drafting of the BSF and subsequently the BASF for good reasons.

Your reference to Bro. Hayward having written that “the appropriate form of separating is between the one body of Christ and the world,” and the assumption that there is an identifiable and wide gulf between the two leaves me at wonderment as to the term, “wide gulf” Certainly there is a manifest separateness of believers from the world order of things, motivated by and predicated upon divine principles which identifies the differ­ence between light and darkness. At the same time, while we remain in this kosmos (world order of things), for we can’t go out of the world (I Cor. 5), we continue to present the Truth to those who will hear. Such presentation and lifestyle of the believer identifies the separateness referred to which prin­ciple began with the calling of Abra­ham out of Ur.

The result of the process is that all who are unified in belief in regard to fundamental doctrines are welcomed in fellowship. Relative to your ques­tion — “which position is correct?” -­I would see considerable merit in that expressed by Bro. Owen.

Faithfully yours,
Lloyd Newth, Turkey Point, ONT

By a “wide gulf,” we were obvi­ously not alluding to anything physical or geographical but to matters of be­liefs, standards and behavior.

Our comment, “We should try…” must be read in the context of, “If Bro. Hayward is right…” As a com­munity, we have done precisely this and rightly so, because we can and should define the teachings of Christ as opposed to those of antichrist. Our personal feeling is that we have done this, and done it well, in our com­monly accepted Statement of Faith. Having read through a wide variety of similar attempts, we appreciate more than ever the absolutely superb job reflected in the BASF. While there may be a few omissions and a few clauses poorly worded, overall it is brilliant.

Not practicable to change BASF

Dear Bro. Don,

Loving greetings in Jesus’ name.

I found Bro. Michael Owen’ s letter in the August “Tidings” provided an accurate and useful description of the responsibilities of all who, on funda­mental Bible principles, now choose to meet on the BASF. Using scriptural principles and the collective wisdom of spiritually-minded brethren, we have agreed on a basis of fellowship that has served well for many years and, with God’s blessing, has supported an effective worldwide fellowship on a sound and consistent basis.

The clear majority of Christadel­phians worldwide are satisfied with the scriptural position contained in the BASF. There is therefore, no need for additional modifications to this state­ment which could cause further disruption or division. Changes to this basis cannot be implemented unilaterally, anymore than an individual mem­ber can alter the constitution of his ec­clesia without the concurrence of the majority of members in their ecclesia.

We believe that the BASF provides a satisfactory basis for worldwide fellowship today that is acceptable to our Heavenly Father. Individuals need to decide if they wish to meet on the BASF. This will then determine with whom they will associate in regular fellowship. Active, loving and productive service is then possible in a spirit of Christ-like harmony.

Sincerely,
Ken Curry, Toronto, ONT

You are probably aware that Aus­tralian ecclesias regularly add accep­tance of the 1958 unity book as an ad­ditional qualifier to acceptance of the BASF (cf. recent announcements re­garding new ecclesias in Happy Val­ley, Kersbrook and Blue Mountains). In addition, the version of the BASF published by CSSS in their book on “Preparing for Baptism” has two clauses added to the “Doctrines to be Rejected” section. This illustrates the point that we must keep clear that we are talking about the “first principles of the Truth as expressed in the BASF” recognizing that these same principles can be expressed in some­what different or amplified words.

BASF has worked in past reunions

Dear Bro. Don,

Loving greetings in Jesus.

The editorial comment appended to Bro. Michael Owen’ s valuable letter in the August “Tidings,” suggests we should try to arrive at “the scriptural definition of the body of Christ and define our basis for fellowship to include all those who are in it.” We are persuaded that the true “scriptural definition of the body” exists where there is agreement on fundamental beliefs -­what we call ‘first principles” — and we are united by the doctrines we hold in common. The Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF) scripturally defines our common belief and has served our worldwide body exceedingly well for almost a century.

When the body has had the oppor­tunity to include others by reunion, the BASF has provided a sound basis for fellowship. In the reunion of 1953, in which many of us in North America were pleased to personally participate, the body was extended on the basis of the BASF. Likewise, in the reunion of 1957 when, once again, there was an opportunity to extend the body, the BASF served as the basis of refellow­ship. In the last few years, we rejoice that individuals and small groups have sought reunion in Alberta and Saskatchewan on the basis of the BASF. Brethren and sisters worldwide were happy to accept us and we them be­cause the BASF served as the basis for the new found fellowship. We cannot, therefore, seek unilaterally to change the basis of fellowship to which we assented at the time of our baptism, and when we joyfully welcomed and were welcomed by many brethren and sis­ters in other parts of the world into the bonds of our worldwide brotherhood. To make changes on this continent which add to or reduce the doctrines presently epitomized in the BASF would seriously risk our separation from brethren and sisters in other countries.

With much love in the Lord,
George & Ruth Jackson, Toronto

It may seem like we are unnecessarily repeating a point, but the basis of reunion in 1953 and 1957 was not the BASF but the “first principles of the one faith” or “the first principles of the oracles of God” of which the BASF gives a true definition. Follow­ing are the pertinent clauses:

1953 Berean-Central reunion (Jer­sey City Resolution dated September 20, 1952): “That we agree that the doctrines set forth in the BASF are a true exposition of the first principles of the oracles of God as set forth in the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles, and that therefore these doc­trines are to be believed and taught by us without reservation…”

1957 Suffolk Si-Central reunion (Final Statement dated February 25, 1956): “We agree that the doctrines to be believed and taught by us, without reservation, are the First Principles of the One Faith as revealed in the Scrip­tures, of which the BASF (with posi­tive and negative clauses, and the commandments of Christ) gives a true definition. It is agreed, however, that ecclesias in both fellowships may con­tinue to use such statements as are cur­rent among them, supplementing them where necessary with the Clauses herein set out [in the balance of the Final Statement].”

With this point in mind, we whole­heartedly agree that the BASF has worked. This pragmatic test surely is significant when we evaluate the credibility of a human document. It has worked because it articulates basic principles which do not change and because, as a community, we have honored the scriptural principles and have not elevated the precise words in which they were articulated by man.

From Eureka

Bro. Ash Higham of Bloomington, IN has submitted pages from Eureka Vol. 1 (428-431) regarding the Chronology of the Apostasy. The points emphasized expressed the gradual declension of the faith. Following are some of the pertinent statements.

“The entrance of the body into a new phase would be progressive; the process would be insidious; a change would come over it, and be discerned, not so much in the growing from month to month, as in the growth accomplished after a lapse of years…While, then, christendom was, as we have described it in the beginning, pure and uncorrupt in faith and practice, it had sadly degenerated at the time when the apostles had all finished their course, except John. The Apostolical State of the Body was not, therefore, all rose-colored, but was defaced by many unsightly blemishes. ..Paul said that there would be “a falling away,” and here we behold it. As years rolled on, things waxed worse and worse, until the false apostles of the Synagogue of the Satan gained the ascendancy, and their chief, the Man of Sin, was brought forth of their mother Jezebel, as Con­stantine the Great.”

Our circumstances are clearly dif­ferent from when the apostasy was being formed out of the true ecclesia in the first century. Now the “Man of Sin” is fully developed. This requires a marked difference in response by be­lievers.

During the first century, action was taken against individuals within ecclesias, but there is no record of the ec­clesia rejecting an entire community of heretics. Action against individuals worked because the followers of anti­christ gradually separated themselves from the believers (I John 2:19). Hav­ing voluntarily left, there was no need to disfellowship them. In addition, in­dividual doctrines were used as tests of fellowship rather than a lengthy state­ment of faith (I John 4:1-3) which reflected the state of affairs at that time.

Now that the apostasy has been fully developed, it only makes com­mon sense to have a comprehensive statement of faith. In our context, we can accurately define those elements of the one faith that distinguish the be­lievers from the apostasy. We feel that there is a wide gulf that is clearly definable between the two.

(Discussion on this matter is now closed for the time being.)