Which Position is Correct?

In the August, 1994 Tidings, the editor asked this question as he concluded his editorial comments follow­ing an excellent article by Bro. Michael Owen. The editor has compared Bro. Owen’ s article with one by Bro. Alan Hayward which had appeared in the June, 1994 issue.

After contrasting the two articles by saying, “There is an essential point of difference between the positions ex­pressed by Bre. Hayward and Owen that we feel needs discussion. Bro. Hayward wrote that the appropriate form of separation is between the one body of Christ and the world. This assumes that there is an identifiable and wide gulf between the two. Bro. Owen writes that there will always be groups who believe nearly the same as ourselves. The implication is that no matter where we draw a line of fellowship, there will always be those just beyond that line.”

The editor’s concluding question was, “Which is correct?” He was, no doubt, asking a rhetorical question in order to draw out our response.

Bro. Owen is obviously correct. There are many shades of gray. Even in between night and day there is dawn and dusk. Nature does not go from one extreme to the other without a gradual change.

How much error does it take to constitute the great gulf? The editor in his comments said, “This assumes that there is an identifiable and wide gulf between the two.”

We have a friend who believes in heaven going at death. He maintains that this does not affect his way of life and he lives just as righteously as he knows how in order to get to heaven as I do to get into the kingdom. His point to me is that if I should be wrong, he does not think I will refuse to go into heaven and if he is wrong, he will not refuse to be ushered into the kingdom of God on earth. Is he part of the great gulf or is he part of those who just hold a doctrinal error? He is certainly closer to the truth than atheists and agnostics but he cannot be in my fellowship. What about yours?

Bro. Hayward has responded to the editor’s request for comments in the September, 1994 issue of “Tidings.” He, to some degree, captures Bro. Owen’ s point by saying, “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.” I am certain that Bro. Owen would not choose these exact words nor would I, but we do limit our fel­lowship to those who do accept our Statement of Faith.

What would Bro. Hayward have us to say? I would be willing to use Bro. Hayward’ s exact words and say, “1 think my statement of faith is more likely to be right than the other, but I could be mistaken because my knowl­edge is only partial.” I would then have to say that, since I believe it to be correct, it will be my basis of fellow­ship until I find a more perfect one, which up to now! have not found. Do other fellowships have a statement of faith? Do they stand by theirs? Do they base their fellowship practices on their statement of faith? Of course they do. If we don’t stand for some­thing, we will fall for anything.

Bro. Owen was correct when he said, “Either we practice an open table, at which any person who chooses to do so may break bread with us, or we meet on the basis of an agreed understanding of scriptural teaching.”

In Bro. Hayward’ s article in the June, 1994 issue, he said, “Do the Unamended Fellowship, and the Old Paths Fellowship, and the Berean Fel­lowship, and all the other fellowships belong to the body of Christ, or to the unbelieving world” (and they, of course, need to ask the same question about each other, and about us.)

He surely knows that all of these brethren could be in our fellowship if that was their desire and belief Some of these fellowships even use the same statement of faith. We cannot make everyone in the world who calls him­self a Christadelphian come into our fellowship. Bro. Hayward does not propose a solution to accomplish this either.

The apostle John tells us, “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: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”

Bro. Hayward appears to blame the Central fellowship for all the divisions. We cannot make others be part of our worldwide fellowship if it is their choice to go out from us. Those who have gone out are always wel­comed back, if they can agree with our fellowship position.

Bro. Owen was correct when he said, “If we did change the basis of our fellowship (which I am not at all advocating), the practical reality is that even then there would always be individuals and groups who believed nearly, but not quite the same things, about whose position we would agonize.”

Just what would Bro. Hayward have us to do? Bro. Owen correctly stated that “there have been no major divisions in the brotherhood for a very long time.” We always seek reunion but not realignment. We cannot force brethren in another fellowship to come into the Central fellowship. If we dis­regard our statement of faith in order to attract others would they come? A few might but a great many would not. What would be the cost in faithful brethren now in our fellowship who would view this with great alarm?

Bro. Hayward in his article in the June, 1994 “Tidings” said, “First, how can we contend against error (as we must) without having the occa­sional division?” We are glad that he believes as we do, that we must contend against error. We wish he would have answered his own question, but instead he asks another question which really is begging the question. He says, “This question is similar to that of the sister who asked, ‘Since my hus­band is much stronger than I am, how can I stop him from ill-treating our little girl unless I’m allowed to threaten him with a gun?

We fail to see the connection with contending against error and brandishing a gun at our spouse. Bro. Hayward is right that we must contend against error even if our standing up for the truth causes others to leave and we have “the occasional division.” Sad as it may be, the apostle John said, “If they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”

We do not threaten with a gun, or in any other way. We simply try to stand firm for what we believe is the truth and if others choose to go away we are sorry and we are ready to wel­come them back. Anyone in the Cen­tral fellowship who does not believe in our statement of faith should immedi­ately join the fellowship that has what they consider to be the correct statement of faith.

Those who do believe in our statement of faith should do as Bro. Owen said, “We should surely do all we can to understand the scriptural basis of those doctrines summarized in our statement of faith, that we may abide in the things we have learned and are assured of, which will be the basis of our walk to the kingdom and of our fellowship with those who are like-minded. For it is not just a matter of accepting the statement of faith as a matter of experience, treating it simply as a man-made formula on which our fellowship is presently based. We should wholeheartedly believe in the first principles it summarizes, because they are founded in scripture.”

Robert J. Lloyd

Bro. Lloyd is perfectly right in say­ing we bear no blame for any who shun us. They have left and that is their responsibility. He is also quite right in saying that if we contend against error, some will leave. Again that is their problem, not ours.

We did not read that Bro. Hayward was suggesting a change in our written statement of faith. His exhortation, as we read it, was that we should exam­ine our attitudes.

We need the exhortation

While we might put the matter dif­ferently, Bro. Hayward’s article ad­dresses a problem about which we need periodic reminders. Being schismatic is a grievous sin which will bar us from the kingdom of God: “Now the works of the flesh are plain…selfishness, dissension, party spirit…those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21 NIV; cf. Rom. 16:17-18; I Cor. 3:3-4). Furthermore, the “one body” in Christ is a first principle of the faith.

We need reminders on all first principle issues and surely we must admit that Bro. Alan’s words have some relevance. After all, there are over 14 Christadelphian fellowships in one city alone (Nottingham, England) and many of us know of several that exist in North America.

No gray areas in final destiny or present status

While the idea of a gray area ap­plies to many aspects of life, it does not apply to the difference between believer and nonbeliever. Consider the wide gulf between the two in final destiny, status, conduct and faith.

“The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). The only ones who receive the gift of grace are those who are the spiritual seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16, 29). Life or death — the believers on one side, the unbelieving world on the other; there is no gray area.

And consider the status of believer and unbeliever: one is forgiven, a child of God, an heir of the kingdom, reconciled to the Father, part of the temple of God and a fellow citizen with the saints; the other is unforgiven, a son of iniquity, a stranger from the covenants of promise, alienated from God having no hope and being without God in the world. There is no gray area; we are either reconciled or alienated, fellow citizens or foreigners.

No gray areas in conduct or faith

Those who are not “in the heaven-lies in Christ” are “children of disobedience…fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind” (Eph. 2:2­3). We are either servants of sin or righteousness, carnally minded or spiritually minded (Rom. 6:16; 8:6). In fact, godly conduct is unique to the believer: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:34, 35). Many would say that even atheists practice love as much as many Chris­tians. Christ says, however, that if we see someone practicing the love he practiced — a love of forgiveness, self-sacrifice, patience and devotion to the eternal welfare of others — we are see­ing a true believer, for such love is unique to those who are in him.

Later that same evening, Jesus emphasizes that only those who are his can bring forth the fruits of obedience: “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, ex­cept it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me…without me ye can do nothing.” It is impossible, Christ tells us, for a person to be “good living” by God’s standards if he does not abide in Christ. According to scripture, there is a great gulf be­tween the way of life of the believer and that of the unbeliever.

In considering matters of doctrinal belief, it should be acknowledged that teachings considered first principles are important and unambiguously re­vealed in scripture. Therefore, the child of God believes them. On the other hand, the one rejecting some first principles does not believe God’s word indicating that he is not “of Abra­ham” (Rom. 4:23-24).

Abraham did not pick and choose which teachings of God he would be­lieve. In like manner, the believer does not accept some first principles and reject others; he believes the word of God and his faith is counted to him for righteousness.

There is no gray area in matters of conduct and faith any more than there is a gray area between the present status or final destiny of believer and unbeliever. Clearly, from God’s point of view, we either belong to the body of Christ or to the unbelieving world.

Gray areas within the two conditions

There is a wide range in the fruit borne by believers — some bring forth 30-fold, some 60, some 100. Some believers are in danger of being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. But unless they fall from grace, they are in the heavenlies in Christ. There is also a wide range among those who are strangers to the promises of God. Some may be savage, and bitterly hostile to God while others may be congenial and respectful of things reli­gious. But so long as they are not part of the faithful in Christ Jesus, they are dead in their sins. There is no gray area, only a great gulf.