Letters to the Editor

Visitors at the Memorial Service

Dear Bro. Don,

Over the past few months visiting different ecclesias. I have noticed there seems to be an increase in visiting non-members to the memorial ser­vice. We have had this in our own ecclesia as well. It seems there are a lot of people who want to go to church on Sunday morning. Come time for the emblems and they are not invited to partake of them. We have noted some get offended and walk out. I have witnessed a lot of this of late.

It’s a pity that we offend in this way and I am sure that the individual would never give the Christadelphians a second glance.

We have arranged in our ecclesia for a little card to be given visitors to read before the meeting commences. But this does not always seem to be effective.

I was wondering if any other ecclesia has a better approach to this problem.

H. Macpherson
1917 San Fernando Place
Victoria, BC V8N 2G2

We have noted that most visitors are friends or relatives of members and already know the communion is only for those in fellowship. A problem did occur many years ago and the response was an attractively worded “welcome” sheet which also covered our communion service. In the years since, however, we can imagine it has been needed more than once or twice, if that. The problem we more frequently encounter is how to announce those not in fellowship — either visiting friends or those visiting from another fellowship.

Any comments on either matter would be appreciated for publication in the magazine. Any sample notice sheets should please be sent directly to Bro. Macpherson.

Bad Messenger, Good Message?

Dear Bro. Don,

Everyone seems to know the phrase, “If you can’t trust the messenger, you can’t trust the message.” At first hearing, we might agree. But is that really the case? As people who are used to testing things by scripture, I think we need to give the point some thought.

I have had some express the thought, “How can that brother get up and exhort us about this subject and look what he does!” This has haunted me because I remember Paul stating, “For what I would, that do I not…for the good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do” (Rom. 7:15,19).

I’ve always thought a brother might choose a subject based on the help he needed from God to overcome something. By his exhortation, he helps himself and his listeners. A brother could be very wise in one area and lacking in another. We would be wise to listen and test what is suggested against scripture. No matter how feeble the messenger, the message might be right. The most impor­tant thing is what God has put in the scriptures about any subject.

So can you trust the message if you can’t trust the messenger? Necho, king of Egypt. spoke a message to Josiah which was actually a message from God who was using Necho as a mouthpiece (II Chron. 35:21). Josiah did not trust the messenger and should not have disguised himself and fought. He didn’t trust the messenger yet the messenger was speaking God’s words.

Should we stop and test the ideas set forth against scripture to see if they are true and sure? “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20). Anon (by request), Los Angeles. CA

If we are sincere believers examining ourselves by the word of God and honestly trying to improve, our most effective insights are often in our areas of greatest weakness. We can see these points most clearly when preparing talks or when offering private comments. To keep silent in such areas would not be helpful to others. To avoid looking like hypocrites, however, we need to make perfectly clear that we are speaking to ourselves as much as the audience.

We can remember more than one occasion when someone commented on a point that just hit the nail on the head and we knew exactly why it did; we knew the struggle to obey in that particular area from personal experience (i.e. failure).

The principle also applies when we are listening to someone we personally dislike or do not respect. As you note, we should be able to test the point against scripture and should be looking for useful comments no matter who the source is.

On the other hand, just because we respect someone does not mean that everything he says is valid. We may assume he has the right approach because he has proven him­self right in past matters. This can be dangerous, however for he is not infallible. The key is to know scripture well enough to be able to test any issue or teacher by the word of God.

Older But Not Better

Dear Bro. Don,

Your editorial. “Older But Not Better,” in the July, ’96 magazine began to touch on some of the realities and problems related to retirement in the Truth. Particularly provocative was the paragraph, We easily forget our dependence on God,” which was too short.

In the same way that “predestination” runs from free will to God’s will, “dependence” ranges all the way from. “I can do it myself’ to “God will provide.” In both instances, the way we should walk in preparation for our “golden years” is somewhere in between in that vast gray area that causes most of us to wonder and pray. “where should we be?”

Many of our number have very comfortable retirements because of a lifetime of employment in government. utilities, education or major corporations. To them, it has been a safe, conservative way to retirement. While their compensation may not have been spectacular, the untaxable retirement perks are…

On the other hand. we have little guys who have their on small business, or work for one. And we have those whose vocations take them from job to job. without any buildup of equity, establishment of tenure or vesting in a retirement program. They have to make enough money, while they can, to put a few acorns away, and hope that with a meager Social Security (which may not be solvent too much longer) they and their retirement funds will run out at about the same time. Quite a balancing act!

Which group puts dependence on God? Or are both depending on things continuing as they have been? It has been said that “perception is reality.” Clearly, how we appear before God is what counts, but how we look to our brethren definitely colors our walk, whether we admit it or not.

What “our hands find to do” in retirement, and how we prepare for it, might well be an appropriate and practical topic for the Tidings to take on with contributions from a number of qualified brothers and sisters. How many topics could be as universally applicable?

C. A. Carlson, Rosamond, CA

Since we could not have presented the matter any better ourselves, we have taken the liberty of reproducing the foregoing almost in total. On one hand, we shy away from this topic because we always hope Christ comes immediately so such matters will not concern us. On the other hand, the Lord has still not come and most of us are either pursuing some retirement saving scheme or are retired. The consideration is magnified for many readers by the frequency of early retirement and the prospect of greater longevity

This is a practical problem which needs addressing: we would appreciate reader’s input.

Dating of Christ’s Birth

Spurred by Bro. Reg Hawman’s comments (“Date of Christ’s Birth,” July, ’96, p. 293), Bro. Frank Bryan of Largo. FL has forwarded an article on this topic by a Louis Cassels from which we extract some of the salient comments.

“December is a cold and rainy month in the hill country of Judea, where Jesus Christ was born. It is a time of year when shepherds are likely to take their flocks into the shelter of sheepfolds or caves at night. But during the warm, dry months of summer and fall, sheep are often too languid to graze in the daytime, so the shepherds take them to the fields at night…

“Matthew’s gospel relates that Christ was born ‘in the days of Herod the king,’ and indicates that Herod was still alive about two years after the nativity. Herod died in March of the Roman year 750 (750 years from the founding of Rome). It is obvious, therefore, that Christ came to the world no later than Roman year 748, or 6 B.C. on the modern calendar.

“Luke, who was an extremely careful reporter. connects the birth of Christ with a decree from Caesar Augustus, requiring all residents of the Roman empire to enroll for a tax census. He also records that the census took place when Quirinius (KJV *Cy–renius’) was governor of Syria. Recent archaeological discoveries indicate that Quirinius was in power from 9 B.C. to 6 B.C.

“A final bit of evidence is Luke’s statement that Jesus was ‘about 30 years of age’ when he began his public ministry in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.’ This clue strengthens the other indications that the year of Jesus’ birth was probably 7 B.C.”

The Resurrection and the Life

Dear Editor,

Having read with interest Bro. Joe Hill’s fourth and fifth installments of “Healed by Christ” in the July and August issues, I have a few questions:

  1. He used the terms “perishing forever” and “eternal death” as destinies for unbelievers. Is this destiny something with which men are born, or is this destiny a result of personal transgression? Also, I see in the August issue that the term “certain death” has been seemingly substituted for these two terms. Is this intentional?
  2. On page 280, Bro. Hill says, “Believers will not die, they just fall asleep.” He goes on to comment on the apostle John’s writing on the “link between belief and life, and between unbelief and death.” This form of words seems to base a believer’s res­urrection on his position of being “in Christ,” that is, a relationship to “life,” rather than his former relationship to “death.” Bro. Hill also quotes Jesus as saying “I am the resurrection, AND the life.” My question is this: Isn’t this the doctrine of the Unamended? They teach “through Jesus the resur­rection of the dead,” whereas I understand you teach “through knowledge the resurrection of the dead.” Please explain.
  3. On page 325, Bro. Hill says. We are fellowcitizens of the kingdom even today,” and emphasized the

word citizen and the present tense in several passages speaking of a believer’s new relationship. My question is this: Since this new relation­ship as a citizen is neither physical (that is, a change in body), nor moral (that is. having to do with behavior), and is a relationship conferred upon belief and baptism, can you provide a word that describes this relationship without using the word “legal”? Richard Purse!!, Heber Springs, AR

After checking with Bro. Joe Hill, we can assure our correspondent Bro. Joe did not have the Amended/Un­amended controversy in mind when he wrote the articles. Nevertheless, Bro. Pursell’s questions provide an opportunity for clarification.

  1. Only true believers in Christ have everlasting life — only they will be made immortal. All other persons will ultimately perish (John 5:24-25; 3:15-16). The destiny of those who never heard the gospel, those who heard and did not respond to it and those who accepted it only to later fall away will certainly be eternal death — they will all perish forever The only difference among persons in these groups is that some of them will be raised to judgment so they can face the God they have hated (Deut. 7:10). God will not be mocked!
  2. The passages Bro. Joe quoted do not relate “life” to a revival from death only, rather they relate “life” to eternal life. There are two problems with the view that “life” refers merely to resur­rection. First, some who have “life” will be made immortal without being raised from the dead: “We shall not all sleep, hut we shall all be changed” (I Cor, 15:51).

Second, not all who will be raised from the dead will be given eternal life. “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:2). Those who “shall awake…to shame and everlasting contempt” do not “have life” even if they have been baptized.

Christ is the resurrection and the life to believers (we use “believers” in the sense of those who have believed the gospel, been baptized into it and have remained faithful therein), who he will raise to eternal life. He is neither the resurrection nor the life to those who will be raised to condemnation.

Scripture is almost entirely concerned with two classes — the righteous and the wicked, and two ends — eternal life and eternal death. It is a mistake to think one who is raised to condemnation has a relationship to “life” in the biblical sense. The Amended clearly teach the only relationship to a hope of eternal life is through Jesus.

  1. The passages stand for themselves. Seeing God has seen fit to describe the relationship without using the word “legal,” we feel no obligation to use the term. The exhortation is plain. Believers share the national ideals of the kingdom of God. They enjoy the privileges and live up to the obligations of their heavenly citizenship. But this relationship is not necessarily permanent. Jr requires ongoing faithfulness. Those who fall away will have their heavenly citizenship revoked: “Whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end” (Heb. 3:6).

The word “legal” has caused much disruption in the history of our community. we prefer not to use it, staying instead with biblical terminology

Behind the questions

We feel underlying your questions is a view that since man was originally condemned to return to the dust, the only way he can be revived from that condi­tion is by association with Christ. This view is mistaken in two very important ways:

First, Christ promises eternal life to those who believe in him, not merely a revival to life to stand judgment for their works. The promise is as plain as: “God.. gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Those who initially believe in Christ but later .fall away are not beneficiaries of this promise. They ultimately “perish.”

One may say God must raise all those who believed and were baptized to out who has held fast to the end. This is not so! “The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his” (II Tim. 2:19). God does not need to raise the unfaithful to discover they have been unfaithful. Their resurrection to condemnation is not part of God ‘s covenants of promise.

Second, it is only when we collect all the information on the subject of resur­rection, that we find”we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (II Cor 5:10). Based on this statement, we know that the unfaithful, who were at one point baptized, will be raised. But we must be told this piece of information; it is not inherent to the covenant.

Furthermore, in looking to see who will be resurrected, we also read of those who despise God and refuse repentance (i.e. words which include those who refused ever to be baptized): “after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God… in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ” (Rom. 2:4,5.16).

Thus baptism into the covenant of eternal life is not a requirement for a resurrection to condemnation.

Depression

Dear Bro. Don,

This letter is in response to C.S., California’s letter in June, ’96 “Tidings” dealing with “mental illness.”

The issues of mental health have been of great concern to me since age 13. It was then that I first became a care giver to a very beloved family member with severe mental problems. It became evident at that time (nearly 40 years ago) that neither the professional world nor the Christadelphians had the answers to these problems. Due to my interest in the subject I have been aware of changes in the professional arena and in the Christadel­phian world.

Many of the statements made in C.S.’s letter I very much agree with. The breakdown of the family and mainstream professional attitudes have added to the growing mental health problems. There is no doubt in my mind that self-pity, self-deception, unconfessed sin, unforgiving attitudes, continuing anger, resentments, hatred and bitterness can all lead to forms of depression and other mental and physi­cal illnesses. But not all people with depression or mental illness have problems in the above areas. Mental illness and depression can also be caused by physical problems such as a malfunctioning thyroid gland, exhaustion or brain chemistry balance problems. Just as other parts of the body can have physical problems, so can the brain. Whenever anyone displays symptoms of mental illness, physical causes need to be considered. The medical world has made many strides in this area in the last 40 years. As we would consult a doctor to treat diabetes, infections and other physical ailments, we should also consider consultation on mental illness.

Along with the positive advisement the above statement implies, I would add a caution in regard to the consultation of a health professional in the area of mental health. Much of the basis of their thinking is based on a humanistic point of view. Because of this, it is hard to find a biblical-based mental health professional. It can be done, however; they do exist.

In years gone by, people have attributed the cause of physical ailments to sin. Jesus’ disciples asked the question concerning the man born blind: “Who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?” Somehow, the one who suffered from illness was considered a greater sinner than those who would point the finger. This attitude has generally changed except for the attitude toward mental illness. In fact, there are some who take exception to using the term mental “illness.” Through our inferences of great sinfulness causing mental illness, we can lay an especially heavy burden of guilt on people totally incapable of dealing with it. Mentally ill people are no more sinners than anyone else.

…Let us not turn to the mentally ill and tell them to “have more faith” or “you must be full of hatred or anger to be so depressed.” The truth is that we all have the disease of sin. We all do the things we don’t want to do and not the things we would. We are unable to cure ourselves from fatal physical ailments and we are unable to cure ourselves from the fatal disease of sin. We all need Jesus to say to us, “Your sins are forgiven” and “take up your bed and walk.” Let us take the example of David who after confession of his sin did not say, “I’ll try harder” or “I’ll study harder” but, “Create in me a pure heart, 0 God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.”

Overcoming mental illness involves many different facets: consideration of physical causes; loving care by family members; understanding and love of the brothers and sisters; a desire to be healed by the one suffering; at times professional counseling, but most of all the power of the great physician who forgives our sins and heals our ills.

Virginia Brierly, Newport News, VA

Geology and the Bible

In the July issue, we noted our intent to terminate discussion on this subject for the present. But the magazine takes so long to reach overseas readers, we are making an exception and printing the following.

Dear Bro. Don,

In a recent letter to “Tidings,” readers were invited to compare the theory of evolution and the “facts” of geology.

The theory of evolution was largely influenced by a doctrine know as “Uniformitarianism,” described in my dictionary as: “The Uniformitarian hypothesis assumes that the geological formation of the globe was due to precisely the same physical forces that now exist” (J. Cook, Biology II p.41).

This doctrine was foretold by the apostle Peter in the words: “All things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (II Peter 3:4).

Thus the “facts” of geology are based on a hypothesis that became one of the foundation stones of evolution!

This doctrine of Uniformitarianism has led geologists to try to ignore the cataclysm “whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” Some have suggested that Noah’s flood was merely a local event. If so, then there was no point in building the ark, for Noah & Co. had plenty of time to migrate to an area of the earth that would not be affected by the local flood.

The word commonly used for this event — “the flood” — is a very poor translation of the Hebrew word mabbul, used exclusively of this event. It is never used in scripture of a mere flood. The word used in the Greek language translation of the Old Testa­ment (the Septuagint) and in the N.T. is kataklusmos. It is the Greek word from which we get our word “cata­clysm” which gives some idea of the extent and severity of this divine judg­ment on a wicked world. Thus current geological thinking is hopelessly bi­ased, being based on a flawed theory and on a misunderstanding of the divine record of a major geological event in world history.

The discussion on whether creation took place in days or millennia should consider the plight of plant life if solar power was not made available to it for a thousand years, or more. As all plants had to be pollinated before they could bear seed, and most pollination is by insect activity, surely the creation of insects must have been within days of the creation of plants. These simple observations point to the creation days being just as the Creator informs us in His account of the beginning of life on earth. Most plant life is utterly dependent on solar power and on insect activity.

John V. Collyer, Grimsby, UK

Disfellowship for Marrying an Unbeliever

Dear Bro. Don,

It really saddens my heart to see so many members of our family being turned away from the table of our Lord for one reason or another.

The reason I would like to mention in particular is marriage outside what we know to be the “Truth.” I know that you are going to quote II Corinthians 6:14; but may I ask you to define “unbelievers?” Is it an atheist, a pantheist, or any “theist” at all, or is it someone who believes in our Creator but has yet to commit himself to any particular religious group?

When we disfellowship a member of our community for that reason, we are not doing him any favor, we are just pushing him away even further. Where are our bowels of compassion? What right has anyone to tell a member that he cannot partake of the symbolic blood and body of the Lamb? If we want to get technical, which of us is worthy anyway?

Brother dear, you have to admit that there are very few single members in our community that anyone can “cotton-to.” I for one do not believe you should marry a person just be­cause they are a Christadelphian. I am very antiquated when it comes to courtship and marriage; I do believe in falling in love first…

W. Murray, Jamaica, NY P.S.

II Corinthians 6:14 says nothing about disfellowship.

It should be noted that not every ecclesia disfellowships for marriage to a non-Christadelphian. Our statement of faith rejects the teaching “that marriage with an unbeliever is lawful” but says nothing about how we should handle the situation when it occurs. One recent piece of ecclesial news reads as follows: “Sis. Ruth Dalton (nee Handley), who married one not in the Truth, has acknowledged her offense against the law of Christ, and we are therefore pleased to retain her as a member.” (London [Streatham] , UK, “Christadelphian,” 7196, pg. 277).

If we are courting a non-Chris­tadelphian, why wouldn’t we teach him the Truth? So far as the basic doctrines are concerned, they are straight-forward, easily provable and reasonable: i.e. the state of the dead, the cause of sin, the facts regarding Jesus Christ, the terms of salvation, the coming kingdom on earth. So far as a way of life is concerned, the commands may be hard to live but they are easy to understand. If our friend rejects these plain facts of scripture, he is rejecting the revelation of God and is rightly termed an “unbeliever” in the words of II Corinthians 6:14-16.

If our friend understands the facts of the Truth but does not want to live by the principles of God, yoking ourself to him in marriage will surely be an unequal yoking. It will not be fair to him or to us. How can we successfully raise our children if we say “no” when our partner says “yes?” How will we reach agreement in allocating our time, money and energy if we are pulling one way and our partner in a different direction?

While romantic love is surely part of a successful marriage, it is far from everything, which many a person has discovered to his regret. The choice may be limited in the brotherhood and among friends who will commit to the Truth. Far better to wait, however, trusting God to provide a partner who is committed to Him and who will actively help us to be saved, than to deliberately go against His commands.

While individual circumstances vary, in general you are probably correct that disfellowshipping members for marriage out of the faith does more harm than good. The approach of the Streatham Ecclesia noted above has the advantage of a clear declaration of scripture principle without doing excessive harm to the unbelieving partner, who hopefully will come to the Truth in due time.

We should note that there are situations in which the ecclesia has been commanded by our Lord to take the action of disfellowship: deliberate improper conduct (I Cor. 5:11; Rom. 16:17; II Thess. 3:6-11) and teaching against the first principles of the gospel (II John 7-11; Rev. 2:14-16). The right objective of such disfellowship is to save a person. Hopefully, he will come to his senses and forsake walking in sin. Sometimes this happens (cf. I Cor. 5:5 combined with II Cor. 2:6-8).

We have found most ecclesias to be reasonable and to be very slow to dis­fellowship as most realize that Christ’s concern is to save, not condemn.